Keeping up with the Joneses. All around the World.
How globalization and virtualization processes alter the working of
the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society.
Thomas Matthijs Roos
∞
Renske Jitske Wolters
Master Programme in Globalization, Brands and Consumption
Department of Business Administration
Supervisor: Peter Svensson
Date: May 26th, 2014
Roos & Wolters 2014
Acknowledgements
We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the people
that contributed to this project and supported us during our graduation period.
First of all, we would like to thank our supervisor Peter Svensson who despite his
busy schedule, found time to assess our work, stay up to date with our progress
and provided us with valuable feedback throughout this journey.
We would like to thank all the nineteen participants of the focus groups we have
conducted. They contributed with invaluable conversations. Thanks to their
investment of time and open attitudes we were able to conduct the empirical
part of this study.
Last, but certainly not least we would like to thank all our friends and family for
their support, understanding, listening and encouragement during the last
months.
Thank you!
Thomas Roos
Renske Wolters
F IGURE 1: K EEPING UP WITH THE J ONESES . I LLUSTRATED BY A. S ANDERS
ii
Roos & Wolters 2014
Abstract
RESEARCH
QUESTION
How do virtualization and globalization processes in contemporary consumer
society alter the working of the social multiplier?
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study is to shed light upon the, nowadays, complex social
comparison processes by looking at the working and the effects of the social
multiplier in contemporary consumer society.
RELEVANCE:
We believe that the increased use of social network sites alter the working of the
social multiplier –for better or worse. This opens up a partly unexplored, yet
interesting research opportunity concerning the interplay between globalization,
virtualization, social media, cultural capital and the neighbour as a social
benchmark for identity and status.
METHODOLOGY: We conducted our research based on a qualitative exploratory research design
including four semi-structured focus groups each with 4 to 5 participants. To
enhance our research we used participant observations and netnography.
FINDINGS:
It appears that the notion of ‘Keeping up with the Joneses ‘, also referred to as the
social multiplier, has become keeping up with the world through social
networking sites. We have found this change in social structure and the expansion
of reference frames to lead to a consumer society characterized by many
tensions. We have identified six tensions that we elaborate on in this report. The
last chapter of this paper will highlight that the concept of the social multiplier has
become more intense and more powerful due to the magnitude and the quality of
social information causing anxiety in the contemporary consumer society.
CONTRIBUTION: We contribute to the literature on contemporary social systems and the
influences
of globalization and virtualization by highlighting the effects of the
social multiplier in terms of tensions. Additionally, this study focuses on
consumption practices
relating
to
consuming social
network
sites and
relationships. The practical
contribution of this study relates to the need for
novel symbols and cultural
reinvention for consumers to function as well as
marketers.
iii
Roos & Wolters 2014
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 The Globalization of Contemporary Society ................................................................................................. 4
2.2 The Development of the Modern Consumer Society .................................................................................... 6
2.3 Social Comparison in Practice ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Keeping up with the Joneses. ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 The Digitalization and Virtualization of Social Life ...................................................................................... 15
3. Research Idea and Intended Contribution ........................................................................................................ 17
4. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Research Strategy........................................................................................................................................ 21
4.3 Research Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 22
4.4 Research Method ........................................................................................................................................ 23
4.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 29
4.6 Personal Reflections .................................................................................................................................... 29
4.7 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... 30
5. Analysis of Empirical Data ................................................................................................................................. 31
5.1 Tensions around the Consumption of SNS .................................................................................................. 31
5.1.1 Possibilities versus Concerns ................................................................................................................ 31
5.1.2 Incentives versus Barriers .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Tensions around the Contemporary Setting for Social
Comparison. ...................................................... 38
5.2.1 Global versus Local ............................................................................................................................... 38
5.2.2 Virtual versus Real ................................................................................................................................ 40
5.3 Tensions around Social Comparison in Contemporary Consumer Society and its Effects .......................... 45
5.3.1 Social Comparison versus Solipsism ..................................................................................................... 45
5.3.2 Adaptability versus Anxiety .................................................................................................................. 53
6. Discourse of the Tensions ................................................................................................................................. 57
6.1 Discourse of Tensions around the Consumption of SNS ............................................................................. 58
6.1.1 The Discourse of Possibilities and Concerns ........................................................................................ 58
6.1.2 The Discourse of Incentives and Barriers ............................................................................................. 60
6.2 Discourse of Tensions around the Contemporary Setting of Social Comparison ........................................ 61
6.2.1 The Discourse of Global and Local ....................................................................................................... 61
6.2.2 The Discourse of the Virtual and the Real ............................................................................................ 64
6.3 Discourse of Tensions around Social Comparison in Contemporary Consumer Society and its Effects ..... 67
iv
Roos & Wolters 2014
6.3.1 The Discourse of Social Comparison and Solipsism ............................................................................. 67
6.3.2 The Discourse of Adaptability and Anxiety .......................................................................................... 72
7. Keeping up in Contemporary Consumer Society .............................................................................................. 75
7.1 Empirical findings. ....................................................................................................................................... 75
7.2 Theoretical Implications. ............................................................................................................................. 77
7.3 Implications for Managers and Policy-makers. ........................................................................................... 79
7.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 79
7.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ...................................................................................... 80
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix 1: Aid Memoire ..................................................................................................................................... 92
List of Figures and Table
Figure 1: Keeping up with the Joneses………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….ii
Table 1: Focus Group Participants……………………………………………………………………………….………………………………27-28
v
Roos & Wolters 2014
G LOSSARY AND A BBREVIATIONS
In this thesis we will touch upon the effects of globalization and virtualization on working of the
social multiplier in consumer society. We will mainly focus on the effects of the increased usage of
Social Networking Sites (SNS). Throughout the report we may touch upon unfamiliar terms for the
reader, therefore, we have stated a clarifying list of glossaries and abbreviations below.
Followers
people that ‘follow’ someone on SNS, see their information and ‘posts’.
FOMO
Fear Of Missing Out
HPD
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Instagram
a social networking site that primarily focuses on editing and uploading and
sharing photos with the ‘followers’, these photos are usually tagged. An
‘Instagrammed’ picture thus normally means an edited and tagged photo.
Likes
the button that appears next to information on SNS Facebook indicating ‘I
like this’.
Neknominations
an online drinking game / competition in which a participant finds himself
drinking a (strong) alcoholic beverage in one gulp and uploads a video of it to
SNS. The participant selects two others to do the same; those others have 24
hours to complete the task.
Newsfeed
a list of updates on your own SNS home page that shows updates about the
people you follow, as well as advertisements. It is a collection of events from
all your followers walls to give you an overview of what they have been
doing.
Posts
the information one puts up on a profile within SNS.
Selfie
a photo that is taken of one self, by one self.
SNS
Social Networking Sites, for instance MySpace.com and Facebook.com.
Tag
to tag a post or photo is to enter keywords paired with a hashtag (#), for
instance a photo of a dog would be tagged #dog. This way, one can find all
dog photos in the database.
Tweets
micro-blogging updates of a maximum 160 characters on Twitter.com.
Wall
a personal page on SNS that your whole network can see and on which
pictures, information etc. is ‘posted’.
Zwerfie
a selfie taken with collected street waste, to show that one is ‘green’.
vi
“A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is
now more complex and mobile than ever before.”
1. I NTRODUCTION
This chapter will give a brief
overview of our thesis topic, our
motivation to undertake this
research, the research question
and will briefly touch upon the
paper structure in order to guide
the reader into this interesting
topic.
J.-F. Lyotard 1984, p.15
During the 50’s and 60’s, urbanization was a powerful force
that had its effect on social life in many developing and
developed countries. Therefore, significant interest in social
life within urban neighbourhoods emerged (Unger &
Wandersman, 1985). Just as in the 50’s and 60’s, we are in a
similar phase of drastic changes in social life; digitalization
and globalization processes merge together and create a
novel social system. As society is subject to more rapid change due to quicker technological
advancements, there is an increasing need for scholars to understand new dynamics and social
constructs. This is especially the case among those that have a particular interest in consumptionrelated behaviour such as marketers, who are also seen as the drivers of these changes (Richins,
1995).
Just as increased interest in urban neighbourhoods emerged over 50 years ago, we have a similar
interest in social interactions in society as it is known to us today. Globalization processes and digital
social systems prompt a need for studying social concepts that were highly relevant in the urban
setting of half a century ago, but may or may not have become completely irrelevant in
contemporary consumer society. One such theory is that of Whyte (1954), who noted that, when
status-enhancing consumption goods are on display, physical neighbours are likely to ‘keep up’ with
this and copy the consumption behaviour. This concept is called the social multiplier and in more
popular terms ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’. New forms of social interactions have emerged and
therefore we identified a need to analyse social ties and networks in contemporary society whilst
reflecting upon this concept. Fundamental to the social multiplier effect is that consumption
practices are directly related to relative social status and subjective well-being. The multiplier
becomes effective when people attempt to ‘keep up’ with someone else’s consumption standards
and perceived social status, triggering increases in consumption and decreases in emotional wellbeing when these standards are not met.
The internet provides communication methods for people around the globe in such a way that
reference frames are not limited to geographical space and time zones anymore (Hollenbeck &
Zinkhan, 2006). The technological development of social media makes it possible that we are not
only in contact or competition for status with our direct environment, like neighbours, friends,
church and community, but that we can extend our social network worldwide (Castells, 2010). SNS
Roos & Wolters 2014
therefore have further increased our possible frame of reference to mirror our consumption
behaviour, for better or worse (e.g. (Chou & Edge, 2012)). In other words, when Web 2.0 was
introduced some years ago, digital social interaction became possible through audio-visuals, social
platforms and other developments aided by technology, making the social system more
multifaceted. While social worlds are becoming larger and more complex, there is more need than
ever for understanding the dynamics of social constructs and social interaction. As Mehdizadeh
(2010) states, “[o]nline social networking sites have revealed an entirely new method of selfpresentation.”(p. 357)
The enormous amounts of social information are especially found to be problematic when it comes
to choices around identity building. When we are born, we carry parts of what makes us who we are:
race, gender, religious tradition and economic or social class. Western neoliberal politics of
deregulation have created better opportunities for transcending the social and economic status that
we were born with. Digitalization and globalization allow us to have multiple identities: we can
choose to be who we want to be; inheritance is no longer of much importance. This implies that we
now are exposed to plentiful ideas and choices in terms of identity, ideas that can be accessed
instantly on the Web. Contrary to several decades ago, choice of identity has now become almost
limitless: not only is inherited identity no longer the default option, we are also exposed to an
amount of choice that was unimaginable for centuries. Beautiful and liberating, one would say. But
we have found that freedom of creating one’s identity in fact is a burden, and an overload of
(lifestyle) choices can make us socially anxious.
As we will illustrate later on, digitalization and globalization processes have been linked to a variety
of emotional, psychological and mental problems. Additionally, we argue that both digitalization and
globalization have influenced consumer society to such an extent that it alters the working of the
social multiplier in a way that may or may not be beneficial. Furthermore, we argue that ‘Keeping up
with the Joneses’ is perceived differently in contemporary society compared to when Whyte (1954)
described it. After reviewing the literature concerning globalization, virtualization, social status and
social comparison, as well as the neighbour ties, we connected three topics that we think,
constitute this altered working of the social multiplier and undoubtedly need further investigation:
1) the development of selective self-presentations on SNS, 2) the fundamental changes in the
perception of remoteness and nearness as well as in what is real and fake, and lastly, 3) the need for
social evolution in times of rapid change.
The purpose of this study is to shed light upon the complex social comparison processes of today by
looking at the working and the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary society. To do so, we
2
Roos & Wolters 2014
draw from influential marketing theory concerning the social multiplier (Whyte, 1954) as well as from
sociology in regards to social practice (Veblen, 1899) (Bourdieu, 1984) (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979)
and social networks (Castells, 2001) (Wellman, 1992) as we follow Bennett and Maton (2010) in their
argument that these theories “… are critical to advancing understanding in this area [virtual social
interactions] ‘’(p.10). We strongly believe that these theories are important - if not necessary - to use
as a theoretical frame in the process of creating understanding of social processes that are deeply
embedded in humans and that have remained fundamentally unchanged over centuries, although
manifested differently. We recognize the benefits and advancements that are present in today’s
society. However, we argue with Richins (1995) that through the promotion of goods and services,
marketing often stimulates envy and consumer discontent. The empirical data and its analysis as well
as references to relevant literature serve as the building blocks of our thesis, in order to shed light
upon the following question:
‘How do virtualization and globalization processes in contemporary consumer society alter the
working of the social multiplier?’
In order to answer this central question, we broke it down in three sub-questions that relate to the
three reasons underlying this project as described above:
1) Why do people consume Social Networking Sites?
2) What is the current setting of social comparison that evolves from globalization and
virtualization processes?
3) What are the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society?
To make a meaningful contribution to the literature, we intend to provide understanding of the
working and effects of the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society. We intend to
contribute to consumer culture theory by bringing classical economic and sociological theories
together, going further than just testing their applicability in society by rather using them as a bridge
to make sense of consumer behaviour and social comparison processes that can be observed
nowadays. This study also contributes to the growing body of literature concerning social
networking, selective self-presentation, neighbouring and the debate around digital natives and
digital immigrants (Bennett & Maton, 2010) in which social evolution and adaptability are main
themes. It seeks to illustrate the current working of the social multiplier that changes social relations
and represents how society itself has changed in the past century.
This document is constructed in a fashion to guide the reader through the concepts that are being
discussed while reflecting upon our own viewpoints. First, we review relevant literature and use it to
illustrate why there is need for this study. After bringing all the discussed premises together we will
3
Roos & Wolters 2014
present our research idea and intended contribution more extensively. After carefully reflecting upon
and arguing for the methodological approach of this study, we move on to present our findings that
are aligned with the three research questions. When making sense of the rich empirical material, we
found that social comparison processes in relation to SNS are typically subject to several tensions:
tensions around practical uses of SNS, tensions around the current setting of social comparison that
evolves from globalization and virtualization processes (virtual/real, global/local), and finally tensions
around social comparison practices in contemporary consumer society. These three chapters are
directly linked to the three research sub-questions presented earlier. The discussion of the findings
follows the same structure, after which we present the reader with a conclusive chapter that
summarizes the argument and reflects upon the project.
2. L ITERATURE R EVIEW
“It is the whole thing with technology, it
completely changes dynamics of social
relationships, and who is really close.’’
(Focus Group Participant Susanne, 24).
To illustrate the reader why there is a need for this
study and what has been said in regard to this topic,
we create a funnel-like description of the premises on
which this thesis is build: starting by describing the
globalization of contemporary society, we will
continue by describing the development of the modern consumer society and the globalised
consumer culture in order to sketch the setting in which we can further narrow down our focus. We
then illustrate why social status enhancement is a key driver for consuming, as goods and
experiences are highly symbolic in their use as communicators of status, making consumption one of
the main practices in the lives of Westerners. Then, we move on to ‘Keeping up in a global consumer
society’, where we review social comparison processes and social network anatomy, as these are key
aspects of consumption practices and the way in which they function. Then, we describe the concept
of ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ more explicitly, before narrowing our focus even further down
towards the digitalization and virtualization of social life of nowadays. This is where we bring the
above premises together and arrive at the section that presents the research idea and intended
contribution more extensively.
2.1 T HE G LOBALIZATION
OF
C ONTEMPORARY S OCIETY
The world has become increasingly more globalized and there have been many debates around the
consequences of globalization (e.g., (Christopherson et al., 2008) (Ekberg & Lange, 2014) (Thomas &
Thompson, 2014) (Nester, 2010) (Kendall et al., 2009)). In relation to our study, one can imagine the
strong effects of globalization on social comparison processes that were traditionally bound to
geographic localities. However, often questioned is whether globalization is advantageous or not.
4
Roos & Wolters 2014
Although it is regarded as a merely positive way of spreading affluence and letting the developing
world share in the riches of the affluent world (Hirst & Thompson, 1999), there are others that
regard to globalization in terms of winners and losers (Stiglitz, 2003). A more extreme way of
classifying the effects of globalization is viewing globalizing processes as eroding forces that
undermine stable national institutions and accommodate social conflicts (Chossudovsky, 2003).
Ritzer (2004) raises critique on globalization by explaining the cultural imperialist idea behind what
he calls the ‘McDonaldization’ of society (Americanization). Ritzer illustrates a common approach to
globalization that can be found throughout the literature; one that views globalization as culturally
empty. Opposed to this view are those that believe that globalization accommodates cultural
enrichment and reinvention (Kendall et al., 2009, p.99)
The roots of globalization have been debated too. Appadurai (1990), for example, states five global
cultural flows in a metaphor of landscapes that have intensified globalization: ethno-scapes, technoscapes, finan-scapes media-scapes and ideo-scapes. Appadurai’s techno-scapes deserve additional
attention with regards to our study, as it is technological advancements that are generally viewed as
driving the structural changes in communication methods and social systems (Castells, 2010).
Globalization processes first began over five centuries ago when Europe began to weave to the far
corners of the global system. This has continued over time and the nineteenth century is commonly
referred to as the ‘age of optimism’ as there was a spread of scientific advancements, an increase in
travel of artists and scientists, European imperialism as well as trade and industrialization (Sherman
& Salisbury, 2011) (Nester, 2010, p.160). This age was followed by the ‘age of anxiety’ with global
depression, poverty and war (Nester, 2010, p.160) (Auden, 1948). In general there is a diminishing
threat of war between states, though, the international relations have not transcended politics, but
proliferated it (Nester, 2010, p.13).
Visible counter-movements of globalization can be detected in the area of consumption practices,
which is regarded as one of the main facilitators of globalization processes (Holt, 2002). Often,
central to those movements are the increasing tensions between cultural homogenization and
cultural heterogenization (Appadurai, 1990). Nations are pulled in two different directions,
globalization and nationalism. Homogenization is often perceived as the endorsement of the
“Western” values and capitalism, and often linked to eroding local culture and traditions (Belk & Ger,
1996). The most important facilitators of homogenization are often thought to be marketing and
advertising (Belk & Ger, 1996) (Corrigan, 1997, p.67). This homogenization is characterised by a
common language, food, fashion and entertainment across nations (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993).
5
Roos & Wolters 2014
Summarizing, globalization processes are of increasing relevance for understanding the world around
us and may not always be beneficial. Important to keep in mind whilst reading this thesis are
Appadurai’s (1990) techno-scapes, as this study focuses on the global virtualisation processes. We
agree with (Nester, 2010) that globalization can be detected in all kind of forms, yet we believe that
in no other area globalization has taken such a leap as in the global consumption ethos, also often
referred to as the consumer culture (Belk & Ger, 1996). Therefore, we will continue by looking at the
relevant literature that is concerned with the consumer culture and illustrate why consumption has
become such an important practice around which we construct our lives.
2.2 T HE D EVELOPMENT
OF THE
M ODERN C ONSUMER S OCIETY
There are many sociological theories in the field of consumer culture. Horkheimer and Adorno (1996)
present the consumer as a victim of the ‘culture industry’. According to them and others,
standardized cultural goods are produced to manipulate society into a state of passiveness (Holt,
2002). Baudrillard (1998) sees consumer culture as represented by the ‘consumption code’, meaning
that markets inscribe cultural meanings to commodities. The association of purchases beyond the
use-value lies at the base of consumer culture (Corrigan, 1997, p.67) therefore; consumption starts
to become a part of a communication system (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979, p.59) in which goods are
used as symbols.
Veblen (1899) developed one of the first written critics of consumerism and a major contribution to
the literature of consumption (Corrigan, 1997, p.25). Veblen argues that the demonstration of wealth
is essential for showing one’s good repute. One way of doing this is by ‘conspicuous leisure’
(‘wasting’ time) and the other by ‘conspicuous consumption’ (‘wasting’ money). Goods are
expressive and conspicuous consumption is one way of showing one’s pecuniary strength and
proclaim one’s place within the social structure of society (Veblen, 1899) (Bourdieu, 1984[1979]). In
other words, classes are in competition, and goods are the weapons of this competition (Corrigan,
1997, p.26). The ever-greater collection of goods in excess of the basic needs, consumerism, was
given a typical negative association by Packard (1960) in his book ‘The Waste Makers’.
Many writers such as Hirsch (1976), Schor (1998) and Lichtenberg (1998) recognize that consumers
buy more because other consumers buy more. Status can be seen as set of hierarchical relations that
indicate accepted social inferiority, equality, or ideally: superiority. This Weberian view notes the
importance of viewing class and status as different classifications: a social position that one holds is
more important than personal qualities (Weber, 1968). Of course, buying something can signal to
others that the goods are recommended to have, that they are useful or practical etcetera, but
communicating status is increasingly important in buying behaviour. This way, goods are used as
6
Roos & Wolters 2014
signals in the efforts to claim group membership, and to create distance from other groups or
classes. To understand consumption, social status is highly relevant. In their attempt to gain a higher
status people try to consume more or better than others, leading to a consumer race (Dutt, 2001).
The shift from utilitarian to symbolic uses of goods over the last centuries has received widespread
attention over the years. Below we will present relevant literature that fits to position this paper
further and to reflect upon major status-related theories.
Status-seeking and emulation or imitation has always played a big role in the creation of wants
(Galbraith, 2001, p.42). In the 16th century this emulation played a big role in the spreading of
consumption. Grant McCracken (1988) points out the centralization of queen Elisabeth 1 of England’s
realm as main factor. The nobleman found himself in a new position within society (in London,
outside his periphery) where he now had to travel in order to receive their royal goods and had to
stand out in the crowd of other noblemen. The new, the up-to-date and the different was what made
them stand out, drawing them “…into a riot of consumption” (McCracken, 1988, p.12) (Corrigan,
1997, p.3) leading to the birth of fashion and the clear distinction of classes (Corrigan, 1997, p.4). This
has been a main driver for emulation, as the noblemen looked different from their subordinates
now, who in their turn tried to keep up with the noblemen, by trying to equal their style.
During the 18th century, the spread of consumption changed from a political foundation to an
economic foundation, from McCracken’s (1988) ‘elite consumption’ to mass consumption after the
industrial revolution (Corrigan, 1997, p.8). Consumption was accepted as the driving force of
economy and goods became a great index of one’s social rank. The possibility to easily shift ranks
within society has greatly influenced emulative consumption (McKendrick et al., 1982). The lower
classes tried their best to imitate the consumption patterns of the upper-class, who in their turn
would then change it to make sure they kept their social distance. The upper-classes demands
became increasingly more influenced by marketing and advertising which further increased the
change from spending for the use value, to spending for the ‘fashion-value’ (Corrigan, 1997, p.8 & 9).
Fashion is a great example of consumption rivalry. As stated by Georg Simmel “[f]ashion is a form of
imitation and social equalization” (1957, p.541). Simmel sees the individual and society in a dualistic
way, social on the one hand and individualistic on the other. We strive for heredity, in the form of
generalization, as well as we strive for variation to differentiate ourselves. This explains the constant
change of consumption, in Simmel’s case fashion, but can be seen in all goods: “[g]oods are neutral,
their uses social, they can be used as fences or bridges” (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979, p.12), which
suggests a Weberian notion of social status. Consumers buy products and brands to differentiate
7
Roos & Wolters 2014
from people they do not want to be identified with, but also buy products and brands to imitate the
persons they are attracted to. This notion will remain present throughout this research.
Simmel’s theory (1957) that the lower class imitates the upper class style and the upper class
changes that in turn to differentiate themselves, has later become known as the ‘trickle-down
theory’ (Corrigan, 1997, pp.170-71). We argue however with McCracken (1988, p.94) that fashion or
products do not trickle down to a passive group but that the lower group is actively chasing, imitating
and therefore forcing the higher group to change, which he termed a ‘chase and flight’ pattern.
Consumption behaviour and consumer practice continued to develop throughout the late 18th and
the 19th century in what Campbell (1983, p.281) calls ‘modern consumption’. In the modern
consumption society, the consumer is obliged to want ‘to want’ under all circumstances; it is frowned
upon if someone does not want to consume more and more, if someone is not interested in new
wants and desires.
As has been described above, emulation has played an essential role in the development of the
consumer culture as of the 16th century. In today’s globalized society this social rivalry extends from
local to global consumption competition and imitation. Global mass media, tourism, immigrants and
international marketing activities of transnational firms are examples of developments that fuel
consumer expectations and desires (Belk & Ger, 1996). The internet provides communication
methods for people around the globe so reference frames are not limited to geographical space and
time zones anymore (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2006). SNS make it possible to extend our social network
worldwide (Castells, 2010). SNS therefore have further increased our possible frame of reference to
mirror our consumption behaviour, for better or worse (e.g. (Chou & Edge, 2012)). It is important to
note that consumerism is not applicable to the entire globe and all its inhabitants (Schot, 2001). This
paper therefore has a particular focus on the developed world of the West, to which the research
topic is most applicable.
These global developments, we believe, also influence what is stated by Galbraith as ‘relative
consumption’. He stresses the importance of relative consumption in explaining the increase in
consumption. Galbraith stresses the role of emulation in making consumers keep up with, or get
ahead of the consumption of others (Pressman, 2011). The manner in which needs are fulfilled is also
the manner in which they are created. Or as stated by Galbraith: “[t]he more wants are satisfied, the
more new ones are born” (Galbraith, 1975, p.5). This is part of the ‘dependence effect’ which states
that demands are not created by consumers, like the basic needs of food and shelter, but are pushed
by marketing and advertising, a common critique towards consumerism (Packard, 1960). Firms create
demands for people, which make them consume more without being better off as their demands
8
Roos & Wolters 2014
were artificially created (Dutt, 2008). Bauman (2013, p.47) argues that we live in the era of ‘inbuilt
obsolescence’, in which people always look to goods for their gratification and in which needs and
desires are satisfied only in a way that creates new needs and desires.
Escaping this consumption sphere has seen some brave attempts, but it is bound to be temporal and
local and even non-consumption efforts are based on comparative characteristics such as creativity
(Kozinets, 2002) and this resistance, according to Holt (2002) “…is actually a form of market‐
sanctioned cultural experimentation through which the market rejuvenates itself...’’ (p.89).
Summarizing, we illustrated the development of the modern consumer society; a society in which
goods are of significant importance and in which consumption is a vital part of the communication
system. We discussed how globalization processes have influenced this consumption ethos by
expanding people’s reference frames and that marketing and advertising can reach a worldwide
audience. We also noted that marketing and advertising actively push the creation of wants, and that
the desire to ‘keep up’ is strongly present in a consumer society. With more and more people to keep
up with, social comparison becomes more intense. But how does social comparison work in practice
and whom do people compare with? The following section discusses this in more detail and explains
the role of other people in social comparison processes, which will logically flow into the discussion of
‘Keeping up with the Joneses’.
2.3 S OCIAL C OMPARISON
IN P RACTICE
Influential human behaviour theorists such as Festinger (1954), Bourdieu (1984) and Veblen (1899)
have argued that social influence processes and socially competitive consumption behaviour both
are directly linked to the need for self-evaluation based on comparison with other - often similar persons. According to Festinger, the difference between social comparison of public opinions (such
as publicly stated morals and values) and the comparison of displayed abilities (such as financial
resources or skills) is distinct. He argues that changing one’s abilities in order to keep up is much
more challenging than changing one’s opinion. Even though Festinger’s theory of social comparison
has received many extensions and reconceptualization, it is still regarded as one of the most
influential theories in regards to this topic (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990). The extensions mainly
focus on other motives relating to comparison such as self-enhancement and validation but do not
disprove the core of Festinger’s theory that is described above (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990).
In their reflection on classical social comparison literature, Kruglanski & Mayseless (1990, p.195)
conclude that there seems to be a general agreement on at least three aspects of it: 1) levels of
similarity are crucial for comparison efforts, 2) people have a general and pervasive drive to compare
to others, and 3) the process of comparison differs for opinions and abilities. Relevant for this paper
9
Roos & Wolters 2014
is Festinger’s finding that there is a stronger need to compare on the ability level (goods, resources,
education etc.) than to compare opinions.
Similar conclusions are drawn by Kendall, Woodward and Skrbis (2009) in their account on
cosmopolitanism - being a ‘citizen of the world’-, focusing primarily on cultural and political aspects
of globalization. We argue with Appadurai (1986, p.27) that cosmopolitanism can be seen as a
‘…transcultural phenomenon, where the production and consumption of particular goods across
cultures is the major process by which the other is experienced.’ This illustrates the important role of
goods for identifying cultural differences and establishing social classes or hierarchy (Douglas &
Isherwood, 1979). Consumption goods and consumption behaviour play a vital role in one’s efforts
for self-evaluation when ‘…objective physical bases are unavailable’ (Festinger, 1954, p.119), e.g. a
single scale for taste does not exist. Thus, relativity and subjective-ness are key aspects of social
comparison and their notions have undergone significant expansion through globalization.
Over time, there have been many forms of socially constructed human interaction and comparison.
As described earlier, globalization aided by technological advancements has made our world smaller,
and our networks bigger. The desire to expand networks comes forth from the idea that social capital
is reflected in ‘’the resources available to people through their social interactions (Lin, 2001);
(Putnam, 2000))’’ in (Valenzuela et al., 2009, p.877). The bigger and more diverse one’s network is,
the more social capital is available to empower one’s social status. Social capital is usually the result
of standard daily interactions but conscious investments in social interaction are also found to be a
possible way of increasing one’s social capital (Resnick, 2002). This strongly relates to cosmopolitan
theories, often suggested to be a dominant consumer attitude that is both created and sustained by
the globalized contemporary marketplace (Thompson & Tambyah, 1999). Holt (1997), as well as
Thompson and Tambyah (1999) note that social status or capital can be acquired through adopting
cosmopolitan lifestyle attributes that include more exotic and exciting goods and experiences. Think
of the consumption of African culture through travel, the consumption of Eastern religions along with
yoga and the like, as well as millions of students that consume education abroad. As travel is a typical
representation of strangeness and exotic excitement (Belk, 1998), it plays a vital role in being
cosmopolitan; whether it is in tourism, living, studying or working abroad. In this sense, having a rich,
global and diverse social network would indicate a cosmopolitan stance towards life, one that would
enhance cultural capital and social status.
The desire to build a rich network appears to be barely constrained by geographical or economic
factors in contemporary society, due to digitalization and globalization processes. Relations can now
be obtained and, maintained across borders. The maintenance of social relations seems highly
10
Roos & Wolters 2014
important for social well-being; Baumeister and Leary have noted there is reason to believe that
‘’…people strongly and generally resist the dissolution of relationships and social bonds. Moreover,
this resistance appears to go well beyond rational considerations of practical or material advantage.’’
(1995, p.503). Boyd and Ellison (2007) found that sustaining contact with existing friends and
acquaintances is a more important reason for being on SNS than making new friends. Not being able
to keep in touch with friends is thus experienced as inconvenient. However, this purely social
tendency is subject to controversy: regardless the level of intimacy in a relationship, some form of
competition or rivalry is always present (Hoffman et al., 1954).
According to Wellman (1981), social networks “… provide a way of describing social relationships,
linkages, or patterns of ties, and the flow of resources between individuals.”(Wellman, 1981). As
stated earlier, social networks form the basis and the means for self-evaluation and social
comparison. Hoffman, Festinger and Lawrence (1954) have used game theory to analyse the roots of
social comparison and relative well-being. They argue that a person’s concern about his or her social
status relative to other group members is an important motivation in bargaining situations, even
more important than getting the maximum amount of symbolic objects of status or ratings (e.g.
goods, income). In other words, for a middle-class single mom, the success of her attempts of
keeping up with the products or services that her reference group (i.e. moms with a similar living and
dwelling situation) can afford is a stronger influence on her relative well-being than her comparison
with rich movie stars. We adapt our reference frame to one that is likely to be favourable to our
situation to reduce feelings of inferiority: downward comparison rather than upward comparison
(Guven & Sorensen, 2012), and the need to compare to others merely by reflecting on their
consumption is so deeply embedded that it seems impossible to escape (Veblen, 1899) (Bourdieu,
1984) (Mussweiler, 2009).
Thus far, in this chapter we have highlighted some fundamental principles of social comparison and
illustrated why both people and their goods are vital to position ourselves in society. We have
discussed why our reference frame determines for a large part our level of subjective well-being, as
well as that social capital is reflected in one’s network, which is why there is a desire to build large
and diverse networks. Given the illustrated importance of networks, we now take a closer look
specifically at networks, reference frames, their anatomy and their comparative uses.
Traditionally, a social network is viewed to consist of different social ties or communities with
different relational levels and the identification of one’s network is largely dependent on the criteria
for inclusion being used. Different scholars have investigated how networks are constituted and
which types of ties have what function. As these investigations are sometimes referred to as
11
Roos & Wolters 2014
‘reference frame research’ and sometimes as ‘network analysis’, we will use these terms
interchangeably. We will discuss some prominent literature related to reference frames that has
emerged over the years.
Litwalk and Szelenyi (1969) argue that technological developments are the drivers behind what can
be called ‘erosive forces’ on the traditional primary group structure, those with whom we can have
direct contact. However, they argue, it is also these technological developments that allow easier
communication over distance and easier acceptance in groups (Litwalk & Szelenyi, 1969, p.465). They
discuss the functions of kin, neighbours, and friends, all being primary groups. The ‘nuclear family
group’ (i.e. husband, wife and young children) fits the primary group attributes best as they offer
face-to-face, affective, non-instrumental, permanent and often institutionalized relationships
(p.469). The neighbour has frequent face-to-face contact as a distinguishing factor, and is especially
useful for services based on territoriality and often is called upon last-minute (p.470). Kinship
relationships and neighbours are especially suitable for communalities because of their fairly fixed
character (bloodline, legal or geographically bonded) whereas friends are especially suitable for
particularities, e.g. leisure. Because friendships are distinguished on the basis of affection and mutual
interests, they are likely to have a stronger influence on fluctuating matters such as fashion (p.471).
Ekström (2010) argues that different reference groups are important at different life stages.
According to Ekström, the family is generally the most influential reference group, although this
depends on levels of closeness and interaction. During teenage years, friends tend to become more
important in relation to (consumption) behaviour and Ekström states the general importance of
Bourne’s (1957) argument that exclusive products and visible commodities are subject to influence
from reference groups. Ekström (2010, p.382) presents three different kinds of reference groups:
memberships groups (formal, such as clubs, or informal, like families), aspiration groups (certain
subcultures such as Hells Angels or various committees) and finally there are dissociative groups that
people avoid to be identified with. Problematic with this view we think is the classification of friends,
as they are not typified by memberships or by aspiration groups, but are most certainly a reference
group. For, friendship can also be singular relationships with people that are not by definition
aspired, or are official members of formal or informal groups.
Based on earlier research (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975), Assael (1992), in Ekström (2010) , created a
model in which different types of influence were set out (informational, comparative and normative).
As this paper focuses on social comparison efforts, Assael’s account on comparative influence is
important. According to Assael (1992), the objective of comparison is self-maintenance and
enrichment. This comparative behaviour is based on identification, and Ekström (2010) notes that
12
Roos & Wolters 2014
consumer goods play a major role in this. Additionally, normative influences can be important when
certain goods or standards of living need to be displayed before one is being accepted in a group or
neighbourhood (Ekström, 2010). All of this relates to grand theories such a Bourdieu’s and Veblen’s
that appear to remain highly applicable in contemporary conceptualizations of social processes.
Having discussed relevant literature of networks and reference frames, we will now narrow our focus
down to a specific form of social comparison, namely, the social interaction with neighbours in a
consumer society. As a reference point for social comparison, the neighbours - or ‘Joneses’ - are
especially interesting because their role is perhaps most affected by virtualization and globalization
processes over the past few decades. Studying the neighbour can therefore serve the overall purpose
of this study hence, the next section is devoted to elaborating on the neighbour as a social construct.
2.4 K EEPING
UP WIT H THE J ONESES .
Wellman (1992) states that social networks are largely constructed by friends, neighbours, relatives,
and workmates. All of these different ties appear to have systematic different functions (Lin et al.,
1986) (House et al., 1988) (Wellman & Wortley, 1990). In terms of social support, kinship seems most
supportive whereas the voluntary character of friendships seems to be a significant barrier for giving
and receiving social and emotional support (Wellman, 1992). The neighbour (and co-workers) are
typically less voluntarily and intimate relationships but because of frequent interaction (Walker,
1977) (Wellman et al., 1988) it can be argued that they do improve social support, raise mutual
awareness of needs and resources, and moderate feelings of loneliness (e.g. (Homans, 1961)
(Galaskiewicz, 1985)). As an effect, neighbours can provide grounds for identification, self-reflection
and feelings of belonging (Weiss, 1974) (1987). This theory is further developed by scholars such as
Luttmer (2005) and Guven and SØrensen (2012) that argue the neighbour’s income significantly
affects individual well-being. For example, a British study published by the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation showed that parents of low-income households make considerable sacrifices in their own
spending so their children can keep up with the consumption of their peers (Middleton et al., 1997).
These processes, as argued before, are increasingly based on consumption practices and standards as
we have seen earlier on. In the words of John Kenneth Galbraith: “[o]ne man’s consumption becomes
his neighbors’ wish.” (1958, p.154).
These comparative and normative influences are especially interesting when it comes to
neighbouring. In line with Galbraith (1958) words, Assael (1992) found that “…ownership increases in
multiples as a function of group influence and product visibility.” (Assael, 1992, p.149), as cited in
(Ekström, 2010, p.383). Assael refers to this as ‘the social multiplier effect’, indicating the copy-cat
13
Roos & Wolters 2014
behaviour that is being manifested through consumption practices. More commonly, this effect is
referred to as ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ (Guven & Sorensen, 2012).
Perhaps the most influential paper written on the effect is that of Whyte (1954), (also referred to by
Assael (1992)); a study that showed the clustering of consumption as a symbol of status among
neighbours, driven both by the visibility as well as the word of mouth, for instance air conditioning in
the 50’s. Studying the neighbour is therefore an effective way of studying social interactions because
imitative behaviour is more or less concentrated and visible which makes it easier to study. Other,
more recent studies have shown that the social multiplier effect is still significant, (e.g. (Glaeser et al.,
2003)), and the theory is also applied to fields outside of marketing, e.g. finance (Galbiati & Zanella,
2012). A recent example is how utility companies put the social multiplier in practice by sending
homeowners assessments of their energy consumption, in comparison to their neighbours. The
neighbours have a similar sized home and energy supplies. Whenever the neighbour ranks lower on
average on utility usage he gets a ‘smiley face’ on the bill, when not, a ‘frowny face’ is portrayed.
This system works, as a severe reduction of energy is noticed. This system triggers and challenges
homeowners to keep up with their ‘smiley face’ neighbours (Kukral, 2009), a typical example of
‘Keeping up with the Joneses’.
As a common reference group for comparison and an important influence on subjective well-being,
the neighbour is an interesting social construct for studying the relation between happiness,
belonging, and consumption. We expect the traditional notion of the neighbour to be subject of
change due to globalization, urbanization and digitalization. In order to demonstrate this, let us first
look at the traditional notion of the neighbour and how it has developed over time in the literature.
Overall, there was an increased interest in social relations in neighbourhoods during the 50’s and
60’s, triggered by urbanization processes (e.g.(Mann, 1954) (Bell & Boat, 1957) (Gans, 1968) (Keller,
1968)). Increased expansion of social networks outside the boundaries of the neighbourhood created
an interest in social ties and communities from a wider perspective in the twenty years thereafter
(e.g. (Effrat, 1973) (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974) (Hunter, 1979) (Wellman, 1979) (Strickland, 1979)
(Fischer, 1982).
Sampson, Morenoff and Gannon-Rowley (2002) state on the basis of Park’s (1916) notion; the
neighbourhood is “…a spatially defined area influenced by ecological, cultural and sometimes political
forces”. In 1985, Unger and Wandersman wrote the following about the role of neighbours in
people’s lives: “[n]eighbours are simply defined by proximity: the people who live next door, the
people who live on the block. The close spatial location of neighbours makes them particularly unique
to perform functions which other network members would find difficult. Neighbours often serve as
14
Roos & Wolters 2014
support systems for individuals providing emotional and material aid. They may foster a sense of
identification and serve as a buffer from the feelings of isolation often associated with today’s cities.’’
(Unger & Wandersman, 1985, p.141).
In a study on neighbourhood literature between the mid-1990s and 2001, Sampson et al. (2002)
found that by that time, most studies on neighbourhoods still relied on geographic boundaries as
defined by administrative agencies. However, most of these studies are American and are not
particularly focussed on social comparison processes in regards to consumption, but rather to other
collective social capital processes such as trust, social control, violence and depression.
As we have seen, society has been subject to rapid change over the past decades and this trend is
likely to continue. Returning to the starting point of this chapter, there is reason to believe that
‘Keeping up with the Joneses’, is still a relevant notion of the comparative and normative influences
exerted by those that are within close proximity of individuals. However, we believe that the notion of
proximity has changed as through digitalization the world has become much smaller. For instance,
social interaction takes place ever more in virtual environments due to technological advancements
and social media, accelerating change in socio-cultural constructs (e.g. (Acar, 2008) (Muise et al.,
2009) (Castells, 2010)).The foundations (locality, visible goods, and creating distinction) that lie on the
basis of the working and effect of the social multiplier have undergone changes and expansion over
the past decades, as we have seen in the previous chapters. New forms of communication and social
interaction arise and therefore , the next chapter discusses this increasingly digital and virtual social
world before moving on to a more detailed formulation of the reasons that motivated us to undertake
this research endeavour.
2.5
T HE D IGITALIZATION
AND
V IRTUALIZATION
OF
S OCIAL L IFE
The dynamics of social systems are built upon human groups or actors that at the same time recreate the social system with their practices and communications (Giddens, 1984) (Fuchs, 2003).
Giddens (1984) has called this ‘the duality of structure’; “the structural properties of social systems
are both medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organise” (Giddens, 1984, p.25). In
other words, structure is dependent on the knowledge that agents have about what to do in their
day-to-day activity (Giddens, 1984, p.26), and social systems are continuously re-creating
themselves.
In today’s society, collective identities and institutions such as families, churches, unions, clubs,
neighbourhoods etc. that were traditionally used for identification and socialization are subject to
corrosive forces such as individualization and digitalization. In his book ‘The Internet Galaxy’ (2001),
Castells argued that the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family - as stated before - results in
15
Roos & Wolters 2014
networked individualism. Authors such as Van Dijk (2006) also stress that more individuals will spend
more and more time online, although he notes that this may not necessarily be non-social.
Thomson (1995, p.82) argued that digitalization processes have altered the organization of social life,
and that this trend creates new forms of relationships and novel ways of interacting and relating to
one another. It is evident that these new forms of communication help the social systems re-create
themselves and alter social concepts like identity and community; blurring geographical and cultural
boundaries and expanding social networks and communications (Tubella, 2005). Contrary the
traditional face-to-face interactions, the internet, expands relationships into space and perhaps even
in time (thinking of time zones). Here, the internet in the form of Web 2.0 is especially different
because it allows active two-way dialogues (user-generated content and interaction), whereas
newspapers, television and radio are one-way forms of mass communication that typically place the
consumer of that media in a passive and receptive position. Expanded communication opportunities
are perhaps among the most important aids for identity building. Here, there is a difference between
individual identity and collective identity, the former relating to the sense of oneself as single unit,
and the latter relating to that self as a part of something collective (Tubella, 2005, p.257). Identity
building becomes more and more an individual project: “[i]nternet influences the construction of
individual identity, as individuals increasingly rely on their own resources to construct a coherent
identity for themselves in an open project of self-formation as a symbolic project through the
utilization of symbolic materials available to them.’’ (Tubella, 2005, p.258).
The tendency to rely on individual resources for identity construction with the help of myriad
symbolic materials can be assigned to various factors (Fuchs & Gasse, 2006). For example, it can be
assigned to the Western economic system, i.e. global capitalism and its knowledge-intensive labour:
“…it is less homogenous than industrial labour which has resulted in less homogenous ways of work
and life that allow less points and situations of common identification.” (Fuchs & Gasse, 2006, p.33).
Then there are political roots, such as the neo-liberal deregulations that create the idea that not so
much the state, but individuals themselves are responsible for, and more or less free in the creation
of their own well-being through freedom of choice. As noted earlier, traditional social forms of
collective identity start to fade and a social environment arises in which individuals view colleagues,
friends, neighbours, classmates, etc. primarily as competitors (e.g. (Fuchs & Gasse, 2006) (Van Dijk,
2006) (Muise et al., 2009)). In these competitive and comparative efforts, people use an ever
increasing load of commodities that are the result of a global capitalism that promotes on-going
growth and diversity in consumer products. ‘’…[i]ndividuals [that] are special and have specific needs
and desires that commodity consumption promises to fulfil.’’ (Fuchs & Gasse, 2006, p.33). Other
scholars such as Giddens (1991) link the individualization of society to the plurality of choices that
16
Roos & Wolters 2014
individuals are faced with (also (Schwartz, 2004)), the global media, the different experts that should
or should not be trusted, and the changing levels of intimacy.
Despite the individualization processes that alter traditional collective identity structures, people
may not be as ego-centred as suggested above. An extensive body of literature exists that discusses
virtual communities, although definitions are divergent. The reason for this is that there is interest in
virtual communities from many different fields, ranging from sociology to medicine and business
practice, with varying intentions and approaches (Li, 2004). Here, the classic theory on community of
Ferdinand Tönnies (1912), who identifies Gemeinschaft or ‘community’, (the intimate, nearby) and
Gesellschaft or ‘society’, (the distant, public life) is important (Tönnies, 1967). Lin (2004) argues that
virtual communities can be related to what Tönnies refers to as ‘communities of mind’, rather than
communities of kinship or locality, the other two ‘Gemeinschafts’ he identifies (Tönnies, 1967). Some
business scholars define the virtual community as “mediated social spaces in the digital environment
that allow groups to form and be sustained primarily through on-going communication processes.”
(Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002, p.3) or as “a virtual community is similar to a community of mind
described by Tönnies (1967), except that it forms through an electronic communication medium and
is not bound by space and time.” (Rothaermel & Siguiyama, 2001, p.299). Li (2004) refers to
sociologists Etzioni and Etzioni (1999) who define a virtual community as one that has two essential
elements; bonding, and the evolving of a shared culture (2004, p.2710). We view communities and
networks as dynamic phenomena that are under various pressures that stem from individualization,
virtualization, and other changes in contemporary social systems. We take a social concept that
applied social comparison psychology to traditional communities (i.e. the traditional neighbourhood)
and attempt to capture some of the whirling dynamics of social constructs and interaction that take
place in what Etzioni and Etzioni call the ‘hybrid’ communication system that combines face-to-face
interaction and computer-mediated communication (1999, pp.246-47).
Summarizing, we find that intensified social comparison processes can be credited to various factors,
including political neoliberalism, technological advancements and individualized identity projects.
3. R ESEARCH I DEA AND I NTENDED C ONTRIBUTION
In order to investigate the complex social dynamics in times of globalization and virtualization of
society, we give a comprehensive and compact overview of the additional literature that has been
reviewed for this research endeavour, simultaneously illustrating the reasons for undertaking this
project that arise from the literature.
17
Roos & Wolters 2014
When thinking about ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’, we realized that ‘the neighbour’, as a social
construct has changed significantly during the emergence of digital friendships and SNS, as these
have caused important changes in the notion of ‘proximity’ or ‘nearness’, as well as in perceptions of
what is real as opposed to virtual. To shed light upon the complexity of social comparison processes
in contemporary society, we attempt to answer the following question: ‘How do virtualization and
globalization processes in contemporary consumer society alter the working of the social
multiplier’? From this questions, several sub-questions arise that relate to the three literature
findings below and break the main question down in manageable pieces that structure the paper:
1) Why do people consume Social Networking Sites?
2) What is the current setting of social comparison that evolves from globalization and virtualization
processes?
3) What are the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society?
We believe that the altered working of the social multiplier opens a partly unexplored, yet interesting
research opportunity concerning the interplay between globalization, virtualization, social media,
cultural capital and the neighbour as a social benchmark for identity and status. Examining the
literature on these topics, there are three specific findings that we connect and to which we credit
the intensification of social comparison process. We conclude that the following three factors are all
partly unexplored: the development of selective self-presentation on SNS, the fundamental changes
in the perception of nearness and remoteness, the need for social evolution in times of rapid change.
1. The development of selective self-presentations on SNS. As we have seen, the traditional social
multiplier theory is built upon that what is visible to direct neighbours, tangible, and to a large extent
hard to hide, think for example of the car people possess. However, as relationships are increasingly
created and maintained in virtual environments, people get to choose what others see; there is
selective self-presentation, allowing for people to create and access countless idealized selves
(Dominick, 1999) (Ellison et al., 2006) (Walther, 2007) (Muise et al., 2009) (Haferkamp & Krämer,
2011) (Chou & Edge, 2012). If the social multiplier still is in function, it would mean that the level on
which people compare has been raised tremendously during the rise of virtual networking platforms
that have altered the traditional network anatomies (Salimkhan et al., 2010). Some scholars have
noted the negative relation between self-selected identities and individual well-being (e.g.
(Valkenburg et al., 2006) (Acar, 2008)). Additionally, with technologies becoming more accessible for
almost all income and age levels, technical skills become less of an issue: more important is how
people let technology serve in their creative and innovative efforts; how they put them to use
(Bennett, 2012). With social networking becoming a skill in itself (Forest & Wood, 2012), going as far
18
Roos & Wolters 2014
as personal branding strategies, there surely is a need for qualitative endeavours to create a deeper
understanding of the dynamics around self-presentation and social comparison in contemporary
society.
2. The fundamental changes in the perception of nearness and remoteness. We have seen that
major developments in technology, communication, transportation, and globalized lifestyles impose
significant changes in the structure and perception of neighbouring (Wellman, 1979). Already in the
60’s, Keller stated: “[t]here may be a shift from a neighboring of place to neighboring of taste".
(Keller, 1968, p.61), referring to the increased utilitarian attitude of people seeking better jobs,
better space, and better facilities. Therefore the sentimental character of a locally constructed
community seemed to diminish during urbanisation and globalization processes and social and work
environments were and are still increasingly being created outside of the neighbourhood boundaries
(Keller, 1968, p.123) (Wellman, 1979). Later, Fischer (1982) also wrote about how urbanization
provides us with opportunities for social endeavours that would have effects on potential ties with
direct neighbours. However, findings such as those of Middleton et al. (1997), Luttmer (2005), and
Guven and SØrensen’s (2012) suggest that neighbours still play a significant role in people’s lives in
contemporary society, an argument that is similar to that of Unger and Wandersman (1985) who set
out the social, cognitive and affective components of neighbouring. As it seems that neighbour tie
functions are subject to dramatic changes over the past decades, we identified a need for deeper
understanding of the perception of neighbours, their function and their role as ‘the Joneses’.
3. The need for social evolution in times of rapid change. As we have seen in our reflection of the
changing dynamics around networks and social comparison, there is always a need for adaption to
new social structures and ways of communicating. During the last decade, many scholars have raised
awareness around the ways in which people are able to cope with emerging communication
technologies and information systems. Marc Prensky (2001) is perhaps the most influential writer of
the 21st century on this topic so far that has raised awareness for the term ‘digital native’; referring
to the generation that grows up within a society largely dependent on internet-related facilities and
is literate and engaged with these technologies. This group consists of young people born after the
widespread immersion of the internet in Western societies and is also labelled ‘the Net Generation’
(Tapscott, 1999), ‘generation I’ (Microsoft, 1999), or ‘millennials’ (Howe & Strauss, 2000) and
recently has also been labelled the ‘Google Generation’ (Nielsen, 2009). However, the term ‘digital
native’ has often been (unjustly) used to address the entire youth generation whereas there is
supportive evidence that personal traits rather than age influence one’s familiarity with technology
(Dede, 2005). Even though youths and grownups may not differ so much in their adaptation, there is
very obvious evidence that society as a whole has changed significantly, affecting both those that are
new to it, and those that were already part of it (Nielsen, 2009). We have noticed a rise of a post19
Roos & Wolters 2014
internet generation that indicates overall discontent with social structures and identity construction
that primarily take place in the World Wide Web (Kross et al., 2013). Some psychological issues have
been discussed by a growing amount of social scientists (Bessiere et al., 2008) (Burke et al., 2010).
Even though there is some evidence towards social network use and increased life satisfaction
(Valenzuela et al., 2009), these problems are especially emergent in recent years and are primarily
being addressed in various journals in the field of (cyber) psychology, digital communications, and
other behavioural sciences (Kim et al., 2009) (Haferkamp & Kramer, 2011) (Chou & Edge, 2012)
(Manago et al., 2012) (Bindley, 2013). We find, like e.g. Bennett (2012) noted, that these issues have
primarily been subject to survey-based research and that in-depth qualitative research is necessary
to ‘’truly account for the rich array of activities and practices with technology’’ (Bennett, 2012, p.10).
Theoretical frame
To address these concerns, we draw upon the theories that were described throughout this chapter
- from influential marketing theory (Whyte, 1954) as well as from sociologists in regards to social
practice (Veblen, 1899) (Bourdieu, 1984) (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979) and social networks (Castells,
2001) (Wellman, 1992) that ‘’… are critical to advancing understanding in this area.‘’ (Bennett &
Maton, 2010, p.10). However, we are also partly inspired by the work of John Urry (2001), who
argues that sociology as being the study of society is passé in the globalized world. He argues that in
order to understand the ‘post-societal’ era we must forget social structures from before the global
world order and focus on the movements of people, objects, ideas, imagery etcetera. across borders
and the effect of this mobilization on the perception of time, space, and citizenship. As we believe
that Urry raises important awareness for the magnitude of the changes in social structure over the
past few decades, we seek to collect and analyse our data in an open-minded fashion. However, we
are still taking into account established social theories and testing them to our data as we believe
that these theories are fundamental enough to stand the test of time. We strongly believe that these
grand theories are important, if not necessary, in the process of creation understanding of social
processes that are deeply embedded in humans and that have remained unchanged over centuries,
though manifested differently.
Summarizing, there are three specific findings that we connect and to which we credit the
intensification of social comparison processes. We have created the setting for our research question
and introduced the topics of investigation, as well as the theoretical frame. We will continue by
elaborating on the strategic approach for this investigation.
20
Roos & Wolters 2014
4. M ETHODOLOGY
This chapter aims to demonstrate the reader our research process. We will explain and motivate our
choice of methodological framework most suitable to our research problem and purpose.
Subsequently, our research strategy and the most suitable method to answer our research question
will be discussed. We will motivate the choice of sample group and describe the recruiting process of
participants. We will show how we have analysed the data that resulted in the empirical findings of
this research, after which we discuss the limitations of the design.
4.1 I NTRODUCTION
People use social constructions to understand the world around them (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012,
pp.23,24). According to Jost and Kruglanski (2002), this is suitable view when trying to understand
complex structures and human behaviour. We believe in the distinctiveness of people and therefore
want to focus our research on the understanding of consumer behaviour (Bryman & Bell, 2011,
p.16). This approach is referred to by Max Weber as the ‘Verstehen approach’ in which he describes
sociology as: “A science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order to
arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects”’ (Weber, 1947, p.88). We want to draw
attention to the notion of interpretive understanding. Our social constructionist stance will help us to
gain knowledge, yet that is not enough to find an satisfying answer to our research question. We
therefore take an interpretive epistemological stance as well in which we can use the knowledge
gained to interpret the socially constructed reality. By taking this interpretative stance, we can take
into account the subjective meaning of social action (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.17).
4.2 R ESEARCH S TRATEGY
In line with our research philosophy of interpretative social constructionism, we have chosen for a
qualitative approach of our study. We are interested in personal perceptions that are based on
beliefs, understandings and feelings. To get a thorough understanding and capture the richness of
those feelings and experiences an approach based on language is needed. Social constructionism
focuses on the ways in which people make sense of the world through sharing experiences with
others via the medium of language (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p.23). Through the use of language
individual meanings and stories can become ‘tangible’ for others. Therefore, we strongly believe a
research design concerned with words rather than numbers (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.386) is most
suitable for our research.
Qualitative research has become mainstream in the research area and is an attractive and fruitful
way of doing research. It will allow us to represent the views and perspectives of the participants and
will help us to create insight into their experiences (Yin, 2011, p.8). Our qualitative approach will
21
Roos & Wolters 2014
minimize intrusion by artificial research and encourage the representation of the different views and
perspectives of the participants (Yin, 2011, p.8). Commonly, an inductive strategy is associated in
order to link data with theory in a qualitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.13). Our research will
take this approach as well.
Qualitative research has some elements that can unease other researchers. Bryman and Bell (2011,
p.389) state two main reasons. Firstly, the inclusion of language as a form of qualitative research
implies a great variability on the methods that can be used. Secondly, the connection between
theory and research is somewhat more ambiguous that in quantitative research. As stated by
Silverman (1993, p.24), qualitative research concerns greater issues with validity and reliability. By
means of this chapter we will create transparency by describing as detailed as possible the way the
participants were selected, how we used the qualitative methods and how we analysed the data.
This will build trustworthiness and reduce the issues concerning validity and reliability (Yin, 2011,
pp.19-20). Generalizability of qualitative research and the accomplishing methods is often discussed
(Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp.61,66,409,505). We understand that our research does not represent the
whole population, as the population of our research, now only taking into account Facebook as social
media platform of digitalization, already contains 1.23 billion people (Smith, 2014) . Even with a
substantial larger sample representativeness criteria would be hard to meet. Our aim therefore, is
not to generalize our theory on this entire population but on the quality of the theoretical
interferences made out of our data, the effect that our new learnings will have on what is already
known and assumed to be true.
Even though qualitative data has critiques we believe this strategy is most suiting to our research
topic and offers the best way to answer our research question. Furthermore, qualitative research has
as unique benefits to engage participants more actively and offers us the opportunity to probe and
therefore this approach can reach beyond initial responses (Burns & Bush, 2010, p.234).
4.3 R ESEARCH A PPROACH
Burns and Bush (2010, p.57) identify three types of research approaches. exploratory research,
descriptive research and causal research. For our research we choose to implement an exploratory
approach as the effect of globalization on the social multiplier has not been researched in this
fashion yet, and the exploratory approach is considered most suitable to identify topics where little is
known about. Exploratory research is concerned with the unstructured and informal manner of
collecting information (Burns & Bush, 2010, p.57). The choice of a flexible research design can
strengthen a study’s validity (Yin, 2011, p.10) and is very well in line and closely related with our
qualitative research strategy (Burns & Bush, 2010, p.57).
22
Roos & Wolters 2014
Data Collection Aim
We aim to collect linguistically rich data. This offers a solid basis for an interpretive and inductive
analysis (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012) (Alevesson, 2003). Ideally, this approach will lead to new
insights to better understand the cultural phenomena concerning social competition. Given the
scope of this project, we include a relatively small sample in our research. Our research will therefore
likely result in a rather local theory. We will be very satisfied with identifying local understanding as
well, as many scholars have argued, that local knowledge can be more important in for example
explaining social behaviour. Generalized statements about the social world are likely to contain
assumptions masking relations of power between those who formulate the theories and those to
whom they are implied (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p.66). However, we believe that this local theory
is representative for European countries as our participants have various European nationalities.
4.4 R ESEARCH M ET HOD
Qualitative research can take many empirical research forms that can differ from each other
considerably (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.387). We have considered many available methods, in
particular we have strongly considered using a diary method for this research.
Diaries would have been a good way to involve many participants as there is a great amount of
freedom and the researcher can move from the one to the other participant (Easterby-Smith et al.,
2012, p.134). This has been regarded as very beneficial to gather substantially rich data in the limited
amount of time available for this project. However, we have discovered several disadvantages that
withheld us from using this method. For example, a diary approach includes a process of attrition.
This could affect our participants in such a way that the diarist would become less diligent and would
fail to record details quickly so that memory problems set in (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.244). As we
recognize the importance of body language and intonation we find it not only important what people
say but also how they say it, which diaries do not allow (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.506). Lastly, and for
us the main reason not to use this method, is that diaries do not take subconscious information
processing into account (Bowers et al., 1990). SNS have already been deeply embedded in our
culture and therefore, many people use it automatically. As we want to discover the underlying
thoughts, sometimes even subconscious thoughts, diaries were not deemed the most suitable
method for this analysis as we need to trigger the participants to actively reflect on their behaviour.
Focus Groups
We discovered our need for a method that allowed us to time-efficiently gather rich data, in a
manner that allowed us to probe, take into account body language and nuances of the participants’
language, and help us to generate a deeper understanding to serve our research purpose. We
23
Roos & Wolters 2014
conclude that given the research question, the strategy, and the need for rich narrative data focus
groups are most suitable to conduct this research.
The focus group is defined by Yin (2011, p.309) as “A form of data collection whereby the researcher
convenes a small group of people having similar attributes, experiences, or “focus” and leads the
group in a nondirective manner. The objective is to surface the perspectives of the people in the group
with as minimal influence by the researcher as possible.”. The idea of our focus group method is that
the group process will help people to explore and clarify their views.
Through the focus group the participants can work alongside us, which can take us in new and often
unexpected directions (Kitzinger, 1995). This makes it interesting for us as the influence of
digitalization on social structure and specifically on the neighbour has not been deeply researched
yet. Additionally, we chose for a focus group approach as it has been successfully used in marketing
research but is also increasingly used in social sciences (Morgan & Krueger, 1993, pp.3-19) as our
research project touches upon both fields. Focus groups are an economical way of tapping into the
views of a number of people (Morgan & Krueger, 1993, p.5). Conducting focus group interviews
would therefore allow us to gather rich data, and more data than could be achieved by one-to-one
interviews; thus creating synergy. Furthermore, they encourage a greater degree of spontaneity. The
group can provide a ‘safe’ forum as participants do not have to sit one-on-one with the researcher
(Fern, 1983), additionally, they can make participants feel supported by group membership and
cohesiveness (Goldman, 1962). When we, as moderators, create a good group ambiance the
participants would not or less experience self-presentational concerns (Wilson, 1994) than by using
diaries, for example. The focus group is also a great way to uncover more subconscious thoughts,
when one participant says something it might have a recall effect on other participants.
Limitations of focus groups
Focus groups have several limitations, as stated earlier, the spontaneity of focus groups can be very
beneficial however it also becomes harder for us as we would have less control over the proceedings
(Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.515). To prevent the focus group from ‘taking over’ too much, we will make
sure as moderators to make a set of prompts and questions beforehand that we want to discuss. This
list can be found in Appendix 1. To ensure this, it is important for us to keep a good track of time.
When taking this precautions we believe that this limitation can be significantly reduced and that we
will be able to create a good balance between spontaneity and directing the group into a desired
conversation.
One of the reasons we have chosen this method is to produce a rich amount of data, time-efficiently.
Yet, a limitation of rich data is that it can become very hard to analyse, and time-consuming to
24
Roos & Wolters 2014
transcribe (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.516). To reduce this limitation we need a clear strategy for the
data transcription and analysis. This strategy we will elaborate on in subchapter 4.5.
Focus groups may be hard to organize as there are more participants needed in one interview
(Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.516). We will therefore make sure to contact our participants well in
advance and induce them to participate by providing non-monetary incentives like coffee, cookies
and chips. Also, we will take this into account by choosing our sample group.
Another potential limitation is the risk that can occur that during the focus group, one of the
participants takes the overhand or is too prominent. This can have an influence on whether or not all
participants will express their own views (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.516) (Gibbs, 1997). We will be
highly aware of this during the focus groups and make sure to moderate successfully as to make
everyone’s voice heard. We also will take this into account when composing the groups.
Research Enhancing Methods
As stated by (Elliott & Jankel-Elliott, 2003), “people do not always do what they say and say what
they do”. We therefore decided to back our research up by online ethnographic participant
observation. We will continue to be active social media users, looking into specific activity on SNS
with regards to the social multiplier. We additionally observed the activity of our focus group
participants in order to see whether their claimed activity corresponded with their actual activity.
The limitations of participant observation include the requirement of intense researcher involvement
in the day-to-day activities of participants (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.425) which is the reason we have
chosen this method as an enrichment of our material and not as main method. Furthermore, we
need a language based approach, the data that we need are therefore spoken words, rich spoken
narratives which could be best achieved by focus groups.
In our research we also used what Kozinets (2011), refers to as netnography. This form of study
entails ethnography of online communities. We explored particular online communities regarding
the current relationship with neighbours. Several of those communities are found on SNS like
Facebook. We immersed ourselves in Facebook neighbourhood communities like: Klostergarden
2013/2014 (Klostergarden, 2014) and Tenants at Pålsjöäng-Palsjoang (Palsjoang, 2014). Both are
neighbourhood communities in Lund, Sweden. The first community counts 192 members and the
latter 189. We also used netnography in another internet community: Social Anxiety Support (2013).
This platform we used to get a better understanding of social anxiety issues in relation to physical
neighbours.
25
Roos & Wolters 2014
After critically considering the benefits, limitations and alternatives, we are convinced that focus
groups offer many benefits for our particular research topic and our time frame. We believe, when
carefully planning to limit the disadvantages, this is the most suitable main method for our research
to collect rich data. Furthermore, we are convinced that online participant observation and
netnography offer great opportunities to enhance our research.
Sample
A requirement for our participants to participate was that they needed to be social media users. In
addition we decided to focus our research on two different groups. The first group would be students
between 17-19 years old and accounts one focus group interview. This group was chosen as they
have grown up with social media and the digitalized world. Furthermore this group is still very much
in the process of forming their identity and have not so much established their place in society yet.
This is an interesting given when looking into social comparison. The second group was chosen as
international students between 22-28 years old, and accounted for three focus group interviews. This
group was chosen as these participants have a lot of experience with globalization, living abroad and
travelling and are considered more reflexive on what they use social media for and how that has
affected / how it affects their life.
As stated, this research will collect data through direct engagement with participants and will
therefore take the form of Gibbons et al.’s (1994) mode 2 research, that focuses on producing
knowledge (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p.11) and which includes taking a more reflexive stance
(Gibbons et al., 1994, p.3). Focus groups require relatively little time to gather the data, though the
transcription, codification and analysis require a great amount of time as many voices are included.
The number of participants per focus group therefore must be limited (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.188)
as well as the amount of focus groups conducted.
Focus group participants
There are many different accounts on how many participants a focus group should have. For
example, one assumption is that focus groups ideally should have between eight and twelve
members and that the more members, the ideas per persons decrease (Fern, 1983). According to
Payne (1976), no group discussion should have more than eight participants and six to seven would
be the perfect group size. We argue however with Sampson (1972) that there is not one correct
group size. We agree that the value of a group is independent of its size and that instead, the value of
the group depends on how articulated the members are and what the personal style of us as
moderators is.
26
Roos & Wolters 2014
We felt most comfortable with a group which is not too big, to make the discussion more
manageable and to allow a more in depth discussion. We therefore choose for a focus group size of
four to five people. This size is referred to by Krueger and Casey (2009, pp.67-68) as a mini-focus
group. The disadvantage of a mini-focus group is the limited amount of total experiences because the
group is smaller. Yet, for our research this size is ideal as we want to gain understanding, in-depth
insights and our research contains a topic, digitalization, with which participants have intense and
lengthy experiences (Krueger & Casey, 2009, p.68).
To make it more manageable for us to organize this groups and reduce the risk of people not
showing up, we decided to approach friends and acquaintances of ours to participate. Selecting
participants on basis of easiest accessibility is also referred to as ‘convenience sampling’ (EasterbySmith et al., 2012, p.228). We created groups in which everyone knows each other already and feels
comfortable expressing opinions.
We decided as suggested by Krueger and Casey (2009) to continue conducting focus groups until we
experienced a point of saturation. For us this point was after having conducted four focus groups.
Even though we still gained new insights of this group, we started to hear increasingly more things
that had been said already in other groups. Therefore, after the fourth focus group we decided that
our topic was covered as satisfactory, taking into account the scope of this project. Table 1 shows the
composition of the different focus groups and its participants.
Focus Group
Participant
Age
Gender
Nationality
1
Willyant
17
F
Dutch
Sjoukje
16
F
Dutch
Jacob
17
M
Dutch
Jannieck
16
F
Dutch
Rixt
16
F
Dutch
Jenno
26
M
Dutch
Arjan
27
M
Dutch
Joggli
24
M
Dutch
Martijn
21
M
Dutch
Niklas
25
M
French/Swedish
Aleksandra
24
F
Serbian
Cecilia
24
F
Swedish
Aris
23
M
Swedish
Susanne
24
F
German
2
3
27
Roos & Wolters 2014
4
Simon
25
M
Norwegian
Elisabeth
26
F
Norwegian
Alex
27
M
German
Rita
27
F
German
Julia
27
F
German
TABLE 1. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Data Collection
Each focus group session lasted between 1 and 2 hours. Our general strategy during the focus group
was to conduct them in a semi-structured way, with only an aide memoir to keep us on track and to
make sure all our points of interest would be discussed (see Appendix 1). We were inspired by
Kvale’s (1996, pp.4-5) metaphor of the ‘interviewer as a traveller’. This meant for us to “wander
together” with the participants to freely explore the unknown territory by asking them questions
leading the subjects to tell their own stories.
To enhance the relationship and trust between the participants and us, we would start with asking
easy-to-answer questions to make the participants feel comfortable like: ‘what social media
platforms are you using?’ After the questions regarding social media usage we continued with
touching upon topics like globalization and consumption, (online) behaviour, buying behaviour and
social comparison, digital life and happiness. By good time management and planning we made sure
that we had enough time and to be flexible and follow up on interesting lines of conversations and
keep the earlier mentioned balance between spontaneity and group direction. We made sure as
moderators to ask open questions and challenge participants with different statements.
Furthermore, we tried to subtly show the participants that we listened, did not judge and were
adaptable. These qualities generally promote trust as well as it increases the likelihood of open,
interactive dialogue (Gibbs, 1997).
Ethical Concerns
Bryman and Bell (2011, pp.128-44) state several ethical principles to protect the interests of the
research. We have very well considered the ethical issues regarding this project. We therefore made
sure to not harm the participants in any way by providing a comfortable environment and carefully
select our manner of interaction. Furthermore, we made sure informed consent was clearly given
and we provided the participants with all information needed to make an informed decision to
participate, for example that this project will be shared. As can be seen in Table 1, for privacy reasons
we have not mentioned the last name of the participants.
28
Roos & Wolters 2014
4.5 D ATA A N ALYSIS
A clear strategy for our data analysis is needed to comprehend the rich material collected. Data
transcription and coding is very time-consuming, we therefore, as grounded theory suggests (Bryman
& Bell, 2011, p.585), have started this process as early as possible. To increase the time-efficiency of
transcribing we have used a software program called ‘Express Scribe’. This program allowed us to
increase and decrease the speed of talking and to easily rewind and forward conversations. This
reduced the disadvantage of focus groups as stated by Gibbs (1997) that transcribing focus group
interviews might be hard due to more voices in one interview which can make transcribing a tough
process.
After transcribing the four interviews we decided to code and theme our data. Coding is widely
accepted in the research community (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.589). To make this process as effective
and efficient as possible we used the programme Nvivo 10. Coding our quotes and exporting this
from the program, resulted in a clear list with: 79 different codes, the focus group, participants name
and the corresponding quotes. By aiding this list and several white boards we did two days of
brainstorming session about how to best theme the codes. These themes subsequently led to the
classification of our findings.
Whilst using this method of coding we have been very aware that the context of what is said and the
narrative flow did not get lost as is commonly the case. We therefore used a grounded analysis which
is more holistic than a content analysis, as the data can speak for itself and observations will be
carefully placed into context (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p.163).
Furthermore, we embraced a narrative research approach for the interpretation of the data. This
analysis method enabled us to examine ideas, values and beliefs hidden in the stories and language
that our participants used (Alevesson, 2003, p.30).
4.6 P ERSONAL R EFLECTIONS
We believe in the importance of reflecting and adapting strategies in order to reach optimal results.
As this was the first time for both of us to implement this method of research we could detect a
steep learning curve throughout our project. Below we will briefly describe some of the most
important learning points during the focus groups and how it influenced our approach for the
following focus groups.
Focus Group Number 1
This group was the younger generation 16-17 years old. The answers they gave to the questions were
short which decreased the ability of collecting rich data. During the transcription of this interview we
29
Roos & Wolters 2014
noticed that we could have increased conversation by probing, on a few points we could have gone
deeper in detail. Additionally, we could have challenged them with statements. Even though we
know it is best to use open questions, we noticed when listening back to the interview, that we asked
a few closed questions. Therefore, we agreed to be more aware of probing next time, using open
questions and include some challenging statements.
Focus Group Number 2
For this focus group we implemented and practiced the learning points of group 1. During this
interview the data gained was rich and there was a more natural flow of the interview. The main
learning points during this focus group was that we played a big role in the conversations whilst we
actually needed to stay in the role of moderator and not participant. Furthermore, to make the
atmosphere comfortable we had decided to conduct this interview at home. However, we noticed
this setting was too relaxed as the group often went off- topic and therefore there was more need
for direction from our side.
Focus Group Number 3
In this Focus group we took the learned moderator skills into account. We conducted the focus group
in a meeting room at the university and made sure there were drinks and snacks to create a good
balance of a relaxed atmosphere and focus. This focus group went very well, the participants were
very conversational which enhanced the process of collecting rich material.
Focus Group Number 4
This focus group has been conducted with our neighbours. Therefore, it was more convenient to
conduct this interview at home. We however did take into account to create the right atmosphere.
For example, we sat at the table instead of on the couch as we learned from focus group 2.
Overall we are very satisfied about all focus groups conducted. Each and every focus group resulted
in abundant new insights and data to analyse and interpret.
4.7 L IMITATIONS
This study has, as any other, a set of limitations. The limitations of the different methods that we
have used are clarified throughout this chapter. We have discussed the inability of qualitative
research to generalize this research to a larger population. We explained that this limitation is not an
issue for us as this research is not aimed to generalize but to explore the concept of the social
multiplier in the contemporary digital society and explain its effects on a more local level.
30
Roos & Wolters 2014
We experienced the limitation of people’s willingness to participate. We reduced this limitation as
much as possible by convenience sampling. Despite our sampling method, we experienced one noshow. However, we do not believe this has significantly influenced our research results.
We should take into account that people do not always tell the truth (Elliott & Jankel-Elliott, 2003).
By participant observation we have reduced this limitation, however, this limitation should still be
acknowledged.
We believe in people’s distinctiveness and that there are many different truths, therefore our role as
researchers has a significant influence on the construction of knowledge. We have extracted
knowledge from conversations with others and interpreted what we believe to be the deeper
meaning of the interviews. This knowledge we transmitted to this report. Consequently, this study is
based on our interpretations. To illustrate our interpretations to the reader and reduce this limitation
we used direct quotes from our material throughout the report.
Furthermore, we experienced the limited scope for this research, we were constrained by time and
budget. We therefore, even though we believe to have captured the essence of this research by
answering the research question, are convinced that future research can complement the research
results. Suggestions for future research can be found in chapter 7.5.
5. A NALYSIS OF E MPIRICAL D ATA
This chapter will provide a deeper understanding about how virtualization processes have been
deeply embedded in our contemporary society and the effects of this. During our analysis it became
apparent that our current consumer society is characterised by tensions. This chapter will highlight
how there are tensions around the use of SNS, how the setting of social comparison has changed in
regard to what is global and local and how the digitalization influences our perception of reality. The
chapter will continue with highlighting the main tension that we have found to be most apparent;
Social Comparison vs. Solipsism. We will end this chapter by showing how all these tensions have
transformed our society to one that is characterized by the need to adapt more quickly and keep up
and how this results in a society characterised by anxiety.
5.1 T ENSIONS
AROU ND THE
C ONSUMPTION
OF
SNS
We have found that the usage of SNS is deeply embedded in our culture. In this chapter we will
highlight the possibilities that they brings us, as well as we will touch upon the downside of SNS
consumption. We furthermore will express the reasons that we have found that incentivise people to
post in spite of the concerns and barriers that are considered in SNS consumption.
5.1.1 P O S SI BI LI T I ES
V ER S U S
C O N C ERN S
31
Roos & Wolters 2014
During our research we aimed to uncover the reasons why and how people use SNS in the first place
to see how this use characterizes us as individuals and what the accompanied influences are on the
social structure of our society. This subchapter will highlight the possibilities of SNS nowadays but
also the participants’ concerns that we could interpret from the data collected.
In our focus groups one of the reasons named was that the participants use SNS to maintain
relations. Many of our participants have studied abroad and travelled the world and Facebook is the
main network to stay in touch with old classmates and friends. This relationship can however, be
extended to other influence groups. As stated by Simon (25): “My newsfeed gets disrupted because I
have some politicians that I have on my interests so for example I like Barack Obama, now I get
spammed by someone working for Barack Obama with information that he wants to communicate. I
never look at the newsfeed anymore because it is full with spam.” In this particular case, we can see
that the network of influencers can reach from friends to global leaders like Barack Obama. However,
it appears as well that Simon currently is not satisfied with this relationship, as he uses words like
‘disrupted’ and ‘spammed’. We argue that, even though Simon has the chance every single day to
click one button and un-follow Obama, he is resistant to do so. He lets himself get irritated by not
ending this relationship. It appears that just as in ‘real life’, virtual relations have a barrier to be
ended for good.
There are many positive initiatives that social media can be used for. An interesting example we
discovered during our research is the so-called ‘Zwerfie’: “People pick up street waste and take a
‘selfie’ with the garbage they collected by cleaning out their street. On the other hand, the fact that
they want others to see it, is sort of being like ‘oh look at me I’m so good’” (Jenno, 26). This example
clearly illustrates the positive use of SNS, in this case getting rid of waste, but also demonstrates the
awareness of people, like Jenno, that things shared online can be shown out of selfish reasons. The
‘Zwerfie’ is a great example of how SNS expands the possibility of ‘conspicuous compassion’. Social
media gives the opportunity to raise awareness and take action for good causes but we argue, it
especially gives us the opportunity to actually show other people how involved we are with good
causes, in order to enhance the image that the world – our online network – has of us.
In our high school focus group it became apparent that SNS brought a possibility that is not very
desired by this group namely, SNS as a control mechanism: “I rather do not have my mom on
Facebook, she will react and control everything.” (Willyant, 17). For parents SNS can be great and
offer the possibility to keep up to date with their kids to control their behaviour. For the kids on the
other hand, this restricts their disclosure. Aleksandra (24) states that due to social control and the
32
Roos & Wolters 2014
diversity of her Facebook network, she eventually stopped posting: ‘’So this is when I was like; okay,
I’m not posting, because of my parents”.
In our data analysis we have found an interesting neighbour concept that social media has brought
us that we would like to introduce as the ‘expert neighbour’. This notion is characterized by the
openness that social media has created, in the sense that you exactly know who in your network
knows something about a particular topic. Social networking sites provide the opportunity to make
use of this neighbour’s knowledge: “[y]ou place people in a box on Facebook, you know this guy is
into food, this guy into travel and this and this person into that. So I know if I need something about
that, I can trust him.” (Niklas, 25). This expert neighbour is easily approachable through the social
network sites like the original neighbour would be trough proximity. The expert neighbour has a
main influence on consumption behaviour and decision-making in contemporary society and we
have found him to be a unique driver in the race to keep up.
The expert neighbour is a good example of the practical use that the digitalization has brought us. As
Martijn (21) states the practical use is increasingly valued: “[l]ife without internet would be pretty
hard” and “Firstly I posted that I did not have a phone anymore as mine broke, so I needed to let
people know that they could not reach me, and then when I had a phone again I had to let people
know that they could reach me again” (Sjoukje, 16). The latter example shows the practical use of
SNS and also shows us the need for constant connectivity. Moreover, it can be interpreted that there
is a need to let others know that you are connected and when you are not. It seems that the
participant has to apologize for breaking her phone and that she is therefore not able to be
connected all the time. She also has to make sure that people know when she is reachable again as
to not miss out on news and updates that she would not receive if people still might think she is
unreachable.
The practical possibilities of SNS are increasingly embedded in education: “I use it a lot as well for the
university to work in groups now, that is for me a new aspect of Facebook” (Julia, 27). As practical as
it may be, we discovered a direct tension between practical and forced usage of SNS: “[w]ork or
school often forces you to enter social media sites for communication purposes” (Martijn, 21). The
word ‘forces’ here directly indicates that Martijn is feeling that he is, against his will, exerted upon to
use SNS. In our research it has become apparent that many participants are aware of the downsides,
that we will elaborate further on throughout our report, but feel pressure from the workforce and
educational institute to continue using, and even increase the usage of this network. It is not an
option to decrease or stop using SNS as today they are not only used for social reasons but are
concerned with information needed to succeed professionally.
33
Roos & Wolters 2014
This need for connectivity that has become apparent, as well as the pressure to increasingly use SNS
to function in occupational spheres, drives us to a state that we become ever more dependent on
SNS. As expressed by Arjan (27): “[L]ife without internet is nearly impossible, you‘ll have to live in
some underdeveloped country. The choice is: convenient life with social networking sites, or leaving
friends and family behind. It is different if you grow up in New Delhi.” We interpret this as that in our
developed world, people perceive SNS as something they cannot be deprived of. If you want to be
able to live life in this western society than you will live a life that includes SNS.
In our research, another concern has been identified related to the false or half true posts of people
on SNS. This means you only see the little best pieces of life which creates the possibility to establish
a surreal virtual reality. There is however an awareness of this among participants, in the university
student focus groups: “[e]veryone posts the best stuff of their life, not that you’re having a bad day.
So it is not a true reflection of life.” (Arjan, 27). As well as in the high school focus group: “I think a lot
of people lie on Facebook, they really over exaggerate. And those selfies are so fake, one of the
sudden their hair needs to look perfect and they need to show a bit of cleavage, while you know how
they look like in real life!” (Willyant, 17).
From the data collected we can conclude that there are many possibilities that SNS offer:
maintaining relations, the positive use of SNS, approaching your expert neighbours, instant social
support, a new control mechanism and practical use opportunities. However, despite the
possibilities, the western society becomes increasingly more aware of the subjectivity, dependency
and negative influences of SNS. This awareness results in definite concerns about the influences on
the social structure as stated by Jenno (26): “I worry about what this [social structure] is going to look
like in 20 years”. Furthermore, despite that in our research the younger generation was surprisingly
aware of the downsides and dangers of SNS, we discovered specific concerns for the generation to
follow: ”[i]t is like they take it from reality, from school and from the schoolyard, and putting it online
instead” (Cecilla, 24). With ‘it’, Cecilla points out the face-to-face interaction and play that the ‘older’
generation has, but that the younger generation now increasingly more finds online. Aleksandra (24)
confirms this concern: “[y]ou see that we have some kind of opposition, in the sense that we’re aware
of how it was and how it is now. But I don’t know how it’s going to be with them [the next
generation] because for them it’s like this is how they grew up”. Furthermore, we can interpret that
Aleksandra fears that the awareness that is now growing in our society will diminish as the younger
generation has no benchmark to compare to a life without SNS. They are born into a society where
they see others living like robots, more engaged with social networks than with direct social contact
and they believe this is the norm.
34
Roos & Wolters 2014
Building on our findings of the possibilities and concerns that are inherent to SNS, and the influence of
them on the social structure and social relations, the next chapter points out the deep needs for
sharing our life with so many people and the few barriers that still exist for doing so.
5.1.2 I N C E N T I V ES
V E R SU S
B AR R I ER S
Through our data analysis we could identify several incentives but also barriers to share on SNS from
which we will discuss a few.
During our research boredom and procrastination were often found as main trigger for using SNS.
Another reason that we identified is commonly known as Fear Of Missing Out (FoMo): “[p]eople are
in school like, have you seen that picture on Facebook? And then you haven’t.” (Sjoukje, 16). In the
focus groups FoMo could be clearly identified. From Sjoukje’s quote we can understand that there is
a pressure to be constantly up to date with your online environment in order to keep up in the
offline environment. It would be a true shame, if not a blunder if you have not seen that one picture
or movie that everyone is talking about as it excludes you. This pressure is already much embedded
in the focus groups as Willyant (17) continues: “Facebook is part of my rituals I never miss out a day
on Facebook, I always automatically check it.”.
We identified an incentive to post as the need for attention. Willyant (17) states: “[y]ou have so
many pretty people that say they are ugly they really trying to get attention.” These status updates
are often perceived as “annoying” (Rixt, 16). ‘Attention status updates’ can take different forms,
many of them concern personal problems as stated by Willyant. Trough netnography and
observation we have seen that sometimes they go even more into the extremes like “I want to kill
myself”. These updates are sometimes referred to by participants as the “FML status update”, the
“Fuck My Life status update”.
A closely related finding that we could interpret is the need for compassion. Aris (23) explains the
effect of someone’s post about losing a family member: “[i]f people post it, it means you really want
my attention, you want me to say: oh he, I am sorry for your lost. Come on, you make me feel bad if I
don’t react to that.” From this quote we can interpret that Aris feels pressure to comment and show
compassion as that is what the people that post expect from him. Something similar affects another
participant as well: “[y]esterday a friend her grandma died and she wrote, an obituary and it was so
long about how she had been such a great grandma, and it is like it is such a personal part of
themselves.” (Susanne, 24). The girl who has posted this brings her followers or friends in an
uncomfortable situation by giving away too much information. Susanne feels it as too “personal”
even though she indicates the girl from her network as her “friend”.
35
Roos & Wolters 2014
‘Too much information’ is also noticed in another focus group stating: “[s]omeone posted that she
had a really nice night at her boyfriend’s house, that is so weird I don’t want to know
that...”(Jannieck, 16). Further data analysis showed many other exasperations like too many animal
pictures and the annoying ‘selfies’. Despite the frustrations, all participants confessed to use SNS
every day, some every hour and most were non-stop connected.
Another interesting incentive to post is what we call the want to inflate. Many people will post to
make them seem more interesting. However, what they actually do might not be very interesting. By
posting a nice ‘instagrammed’ picture, and when people start to like it, they seem much more
interesting. Also for this type of post, some people are aware of the superficiality: “[s]ome people
need to tell every single thing that is happening in their life because they think that people think that
they are cool and stuff. But it is usually people that have quite a boring life and doing quite boring
stuff. And they think it looks cool” (Niklas, 25).
Another incentive is to post when you are doing something that is perceived as ‘cool’. What we
noticed during our focus group is that for a lot of people this is traveling: “I don’t usually post on
Facebook but I do when I go travelling, I think it’s also to show that my life is exciting” (Arjan, 27) and:
“[t]he main incentive to travel is always to see new places, but when you’ve decided that it is your
second thought is to share this.” (Jenno, 26). So these are the people that do not post for the posting,
but only post if they actually believe they are doing something extraordinary.
The frequency of your posts also influences how great your post must be. As Elisabeth (26) states:
“[w]hen you don’t post anything in ages it has to be something really spectacular as well. I post
something almost every day so then it doesn’t need to be something big.” This indicates that she
expects a lot from the people in her network that do not post often. On the other hand it shows as
well how low the barrier is for her to share even the small details of her life. The need for a big
statement is confirmed by Simon (25): “I haven’t posted anything since 2012 so it is not that much,
but it [his next post] probably would be something like ‘Graduated, from Lund University, now I have
my Masters’, or ‘I will become a father in February’.”
Another interesting finding in the analysis is what we would like to call the ‘cake pressure’. This is an
example of the social pressure that young women might experience leading up to Christmas. That
time of year, many women bake cake and instantly share the picture of the cake online. Elisabeth
(26) says to share that kind of pictures because ‘[t]hey are pretty’. But during the discussion we could
discover several downsides of this type of pictures. As Simon (25) puts it: “[n]o one says this year I
didn’t have time to bake any cakes, but your friends that actually did bake a cake brag about it. And it
feels therefore that everyone does it.” This feeling - that everyone does it - makes some of the
36
Roos & Wolters 2014
women in our focus group feel that they should bake too. In order to fit in, or because of offline
pressure from friends and family. Alex (27) states: “I ask my girlfriend: why do you never bake? All the
other girls do it”. The word ‘all’ here indicates that some perceive it like everyone bakes and
therefore they expect it from all the women too. This concept reminds us of what is known as the
‘socialization effect’; the process by which consumption behaviour may be influenced by affiliation
with other peers (Prinstein & Dodge, 2010, p.4). This indicates a form of peer pressure online, but it
also shows us how surreal expectations are created which we argue, strengthen the creation of a
personal ‘reality’, in which people believe they know how it works but that may be in fact a far cry
from how it really is.
What formed a barrier to share for our participants was the fear of consequences. We noticed this
mainly by the high school participants. The fear that unintended people might see their post
refrained them from posting. As Jannieck (16) states: ”I think it is not handy if you post that kind of
movies on your Facebook because when you want to start applying for a job they will start to check
your Facebook.” It became apparent that there was some kind of fear that unwanted people would
enter their page and would be able to observe their whole profile. This younger periphery generation
is not aware of the special settings you can use to close your profiles for others then your friends.
Also the fear of internet and its consequences were touched upon by Willyant (17): “I did not put it
on Facebook as I don’t like it, because that will stay forever on internet and then everyone can see it.”
The ‘forever’ here indicates a certain fear of the unknown, it will be there forever and who knows
what might happen by that time. We believe this fear is fed by the fact that it is so intangible. We
cannot directly see, smell or touch the effect that our posts on the SNS have or will have in the
future.
The part in which Willyant states she refrains from posting as “everyone can see it”, demonstrates a
concept we would like to call ‘fence management’. It demonstrates the difficulty of where to draw
your relationship boundaries. Who do you include in sharing certain things with and who cannot
have a look over the hypothetical fence? These issues are also demonstrated by Aleksandra (24): “I
thought it’s not really polite to ignore people that I actually know or that, you know, are in class.
We’re maybe not the best friends but it would be rude if you don’t accept them [as friends on
Facebook]. But I do not want them to see everything, so I just decided not to post stuff anymore” and:
“[w]hen you start applying they will start to check your Facebook” (Jannieck, 16). The latter mainly
indicates an issue that SNS brings in the area of personal and professional boundaries, which can be
related to the control function that was mentioned earlier as well.
37
Roos & Wolters 2014
Summarizing, there are several opportunities and incentives to use SNS. It allows to have contacts
with friends and family abroad, network expansion for primarily selfish reasons, displaying
conspicuousness, exerting control functions and it has practical benefits. Furthermore, it can reduce
the fear of missing out on what others are doing and satisfy the need for attention and compassion.
The reasons not to use SNS and the concerns include: privacy concerns when people are looking over
the hypothetical fence, the social control that is present on SNS, and being exposed to an information
overload.
5.2 T ENSIONS
AROU ND THE
C ONTEMPORARY S ETTING
C OMPARISON .
FOR
S OCIAL
This chapter will highlight the tensions that characterize the setting of our contemporary consumer
society and which have significant influence on interaction and social comparison. We will illustrate
how SNS have influenced this setting.
5.2.1 G LO BA L
V ER S US
L O C AL
As described and suggested in earlier chapters, the concepts and understanding of the ‘global’ and
the ‘local’ are subject to complexity and different interpretations. Our data suggests that among
youngsters and young adults up to 30 years old, virtual social networks are used to “[s]ee what your
friends (abroad) are doing”(Willyant, 17) and to “[s]tay in touch with distant family” (Sjoukje, 16).
Interesting here is that virtual networks such as Facebook seem to provide an useful platform to
communicate to those that are difficult to communicate with in a more direct and/or physical sense.
A word that is used by the respondent is ‘distant’, pointing out the geographical and spatial
constraints to establish communication with contacts from afar. The use of phrases like ‘’[s]tay in
touch with distant family’’ (Sjoukje, 16) points out the effect of social networking sites on
communication through time and space, as well as the particularly global and instant character of
social networks in contemporary society by using the wording ‘stay’ rather than ‘get’ in touch.
While this need for communication across borders seems a common incentive to engage in virtual
networking efforts, the need for SNS may be much weaker when abroad ties are non-existent: ‘’I just
didn’t feel the need for I guess, whilst living in Norway close to my friends. But when I lived abroad, I
found it very useful to keep in touch with people’’ (Elizabeth, 26).
The strong global character of virtual social networks appears to be the result of an increased sense
of cosmopolitan identities, the moving around the world, across borders, across cultures and across
languages. Inspired by cosmopolitan research (e.g. Thompson & Tambyah, 1999), we see that trying
to be cosmopolitan is not without struggle: ‘’I follow some friends from Germany that I met on a
school trip, though I never understand what they post’’ (Sjoukje, 16). Here, it appears that efforts to
gain or maintain a cosmopolitan kind of status, one has to undertake rather serious efforts (such as
38
Roos & Wolters 2014
learning to speak a variety of languages) to overcome the barriers that divide the local and the global
citizen. Also, a review of the participants’ Facebook profiles shows that most of the status updates
are done in English, indicating the universality of the activity and a form of communication that goes
beyond locality and is meant to reach a global audience. The use of language appears to be an
insightful source of studying the presence of global awareness in people lives and our data indicates
a conscious awareness of what participants often call ‘the world’.
Another finding indicates the same kind of cosmopolitan-alike efforts. When talking about their
village in the Netherlands Willyant, (17) stated: ‘’[t]he world is going a bit too fast for Earnewald.’’,
after which Jacob (17) responds: “[y]es, or Earnewald is going to slow for the world to keep up’’. The
choice of words reveals some interesting thoughts behind this phrase; firstly the use of ‘the world’,
as being something that is superior in pace, and secondly the use of ‘to keep up’, as if the periphery
or locality finds itself in some sort of compulsory race to adapt to the greater whole.
Cosmopolitanism or being a worthy citizen of the world is therefore not strictly limited to individual
efforts, but is also perceived on a local community level. It appears that Jacob feels that the slow
village constraints him in his efforts to be cosmopolitan. For instance, the physical neighbour also
becomes subject to criticism; Jannieck (16) states: “I do not hang out or have that much contact with
my neighbours. I know who they are but they are not my age, almost our whole village is of grandma
age. Everything goes so slow here’’. Again, participants talking about the global and the local in terms
of fast and slow, indicate that there is a tension connected to the comparison between the global
and the local, a friction of two different objects that are connected but moving at different paces.
On the other hand, the participants indicate a sense of closeness that still remains: “[i]n Tengen, we
actually have very cool contact with our neighbours, but that is because they all have kids of our age,
so we got to know them, got to know their parents, and now, when I go back they still… I like to talk
to them, still!’’ (Alex, 27). Furthermore, the participants indicate an interesting awareness on what
we call the closeness and remoteness divide: ‘’It is the whole thing with technology, it completely
changes dynamics of social relationships, and who is really close.’’ (Susanne, 24). Technology has
given people the opportunity to communicate and to enjoy social relationships across borders, no
longer being restricted to geographical boundaries, and some are aware of this change in dynamics.
An important aspect of this contemporary sense of proximity is having instant access to social
relations across time and space. What used to define social contacts in a local setting, instant access
and close proximity, is no longer a distinct feature of local communication. As one of the participants
indicates: “[y]ou talk to them so quickly, and you don’t have to wait. (…) It’s like they are here”
(Cecilia, 24). Here, the global seems to be overtaking those features that traditionally defined a local
39
Roos & Wolters 2014
community such as a neighbourhood, namely, offering instant access to social support and other
social functions. In this sense, the global takes a bit of what traditionally divided local contacts and
contacts abroad, and so the periphery becomes less and less peripheral. Among the participants, the
traditional notion of closeness, instant access and physical neighbours links closely to geographical
proximity: ‘’Pedros lives 500 meters away, he is not a neighbour anymore.’’(Simon, 25), and: “[m]y
neighbours lived down the road, up the road, three houses behind, that’s just the neighbours”(Alex,
27).
However, the influence of technology on local ties such as neighbours is evident: “I chat with my
neighbour on Facebook, because I don’t feel like going to his house all the time” (Joggli, 24). As
presented earlier, this change in social interaction and dynamics is mostly assigned to technologies
such as SNS. However, most of the participants are fully aware of this: “[m]y neighbour becomes my
friend through adding him on Facebook, nothing changes, but his title.” (Jenno, 26).
One of the most interesting findings here is that, because people are no longer dependent on direct
neighbours for social support, they are more selective on who they include in their description of
neighbours: “I just accidently got to know them, but you don’t really have contact with them, it is
more people from your faculty or study program that live in the same building.’’(Rita, 27), and “[t]he
thing is, we know the neighbours, that are also in our class, or that we can connect with. (…) the right
next door [neighbour], I have no clue.’’(Alex, 27). Apparently, to become part of a truly local tie, one
must go through a more strict selection that goes beyond geographical proximity or age; one is
acquainted or befriended, before he can become a useful neighbour.
Summarizing, in some cases physical neighbours have become more distant, and in some cases these
local ties are being replaced by global ties. The afar now becomes proximate and familiar, and the
proximate becomes the unknown, the stranger next door. The global therefore, enters the local
sphere more and more, forcing the local to give up the distinct features that make it the local, and
offering the instant access and levels of closeness that before the rise of virtual networks was deemed
impossible. However, as technology appears to be the driving force here, it is suggested that there is a
certain sense of superficiality to the new social interactions, as they are maintained through nonphysical means. The following chapter will cover the findings on this tension.
5.2.2 V I RT UA L
V ER S US
REAL
Continuing the finding that reflects the impact of virtual relationships on social structures and
interactions, we find that these altered ways of interacting and communicating are perceived as
influential forces in relation to realness.
40
Roos & Wolters 2014
On the one hand, that what is perceived as ‘real’ is still assigned a lot of authority when it comes to
social interactions: “[o]ffline friends influence me most’’ (Martijn, 21) and “[b]ut I still think you feel
more pressure in personal contact, because you can’t really avoid it, but on Facebook for example you
can just ignore something or click it away” (Susanne, 24). The option to ignore something is a distinct
feature that contrasts the offline environment, in the sense that in the offline environment, one
cannot just ignore other human beings. Being able to choose what to see, and when to engage,
shows how Facebook is ‘consumed’; there is the option ‘to buy’ or ‘not to buy’ the information that is
offered, leaving the user with a wide array of choices that are related to our social interactions.
Friendships become consumer goods, and can, just like tangible products, be used for identity
creation or personal gratification.
Also, a finding that repeats itself in our data is that our participants consistently use the word ‘reality’
or ‘the real world’ as an opposition to what is being called ‘the internet’ or ‘online’. The choice of
words here indicates that the virtual world is perceived as something superficial or ‘fake’, the
opposite of what is truly real, reality. The participants repeatedly use wording such as ‘whereas in
real life’ and ‘but the reality is that…’, making a very clear and conscious distinction between that
what takes place in the virtual realm and that what takes place outside of it. Aleksandra (24) states
when talking about online and offline interactions in primary school: ‘’[b]ut they do it online, and I
don’t know but I guess they’ll grow up with it, you see that we have some kind of opposition, in the
sense that we’re aware of how it was and how it is now.’’ Here, Aleksandra refers to the influence of
the virtual world as something that belongs to the present, whereas the past is merely defined by
‘reality’, when people constructed their lives in a social world that was purely physical and tangible. It
appears that the current generation of young adults has lived in both worlds; it has experienced the
traditional social interactions in the pre-internet era, at the same time witnessing the internet
causing a shift and perhaps, erosion, of relationships and interaction in their lives as young adults.
Disoriented as they seem, they are the product of radical changes in communication, driven by
technology. This generation faces new communication patterns that are multimodal as they cover
both the real and the virtual. Therefore, this confirms what has earlier been suggested as ‘a
generational divide’ between those that grew up digital and those who did not (Castells, 2010).
It seems that this generation, that represented 3 out of the 4 focus groups, has a preference towards
the ‘good old days’ as most of them indicate a desire to delete their online profiles. For instance,
Cecilia (24) states: “[w]hen I start working I think I’ll delete my account because I’m really sick of it”,
and Jenno (26) states: “[t]his Western internet world is fucked up”, both indicating a particular
discontent with SNS and their effects on individual well-being.
41
Roos & Wolters 2014
Despite the perceived dubious effects of digital social networks, what is perceived as the ‘virtual’ is
still assigned surprisingly much value: “[w]hen I’m on my PC, Facebook is always open” (Alex, 27). But
the increased importance of the virtual is not only reflected in terms of how SNS occupy us, but also
their effect of what is real and what is not: ‘’[y]ou’d always have to tell everybody, you can’t just be
enjoying the moment; like.. okay now I’m having ice cream in the sun with my family. Then you have
to take a picture and show everybody that you’re doing it, because if you don’t that it’s like it didn’t
happen”(Cecilia, 24). It appears that, even though there is an awareness of the divide between real
events and events that are communicated online, the virtual is an actual part of lived reality, for
better or worse.
It seems that a need for connectivity takes over actual conversations, actual moments, taking bits of
lived reality and putting them into the virtual world, thereby reducing some of the quality of the
moment. If not shared with everyone, certain events did not happen at all, making the experience
only real when shared. A very striking example of this can be found in the following story: Susanne
(24): “[a] couple of days ago, a friend of mine from school got engaged, and she wrote a real long
message with ‘thank you so much, I love you so much’ and she had 10,000 likes and comments and
one girl is like: ‘’What? Really? I just saw you this morning, when did it happen?’’ And the girl [that
got engaged] reacts with: ‘’just half an hour ago’’. The point is, this girl gets engaged and instead of
celebrating that with her loved one she writes this long of a message, -if she hadn’t prepared it
already and saved it for this day to post-. So she doesn’t celebrate with her love?” Susanne holds a
particularly pessimistic tone about the ‘realness’ of certain status updates, and especially how
sharing experiences and feelings take off their value. This question is raised by many of our
participants, as they doubt the meaningfulness of shared experiences; referring to the virtual realm
as a place of reversed meanings.
The quotation below further illustrates this concern: ‘’[b]ut isn’t it also with the social networks that
it make seem everything very superficial? Look at relationships. Some people that love each other and
write it on the (Facebook) wall, it becomes so cheesy. Even though it might be certainly true that they
do love each other but when they put it on the wall it becomes like ‘uggh’. And you think, why do you
have to show it? Do you love each other really? I am not saying that means those people do not have
a good relationship but at the same time you start thinking in that way just because they put it on
Facebook. While actually it should be the opposite because it is a very public statement, it should
mean they extra love them, it should be that because it is more extreme it is more affectionate, but it
becomes less in a way. The social network puts it up, which kind of reverses the meaning of that.’’
(Aris, 23). As Aris notes, it seems that the more public something becomes, the more of its value it
loses. Disclosing affection to a loved one in real life might be worth much more than publicly stating
42
Roos & Wolters 2014
one’s affectionate feelings. The line between what is public and what is private seems to blur
through the use of virtual networks in which personal information easily and instantly reaches large
audiences of people that may not even be interested in it: ‘’[w]e can see that and that means when
you post it, means you WANT me to see it, it means you WANT me to react to it and that is why I
don’t like it, it means that they want to show it and they want me to take part in this and I am really
not interested.” (Aris, 23).
Besides the fact that virtual interactions may reverse meanings and increase the amount of useless
information that people receive, it may even lead to more serious feelings of discomfort like guilt:
“[c]ome on, you make me feel bad if I don’t react to that. I think what kind of person am I if I see that
and I don’t respond to it.’’ (Aris, 23).
It becomes evident that offline relationships should be reflected in the virtual world: ‘’[o]h yeah, I
think I liked your picture [on Facebook] too, it was really pretty. I should like it because I am your
friend.’’ (Sjoukje, 16). If offline friends are not also online friends, or do not provide the same kinds of
social support that belong to friendships, the relationship seems to be perceived as incomplete. If so,
the virtual constitutes a vital part of what makes relationships existent and real, making the virtual an
important component of lived reality that is just as real as other perceptions of lived reality. In the
same manner, a form of peer pressure to share certain things seems to exist. When talking about socalled ‘neknominations’ (see glossary). Willyant (17) recalls that she was nominated by a close friend
and did create a video but did not share it online because of fear of consequences and social control:
“[m]y friend found it really a shame and was disappointed but she was there when I made it [the
drinking video] and later she forgave me.’’ Here, a competition exists of both physical (the drinking)
and virtual acts (the sharing online) that are needed to create a complete act of participation, and if
one part is missing, some acts are not perceived valid or ‘real’. This, and the fact that people died
whilst participating in the neknomination, illustrates the power of peer pressure which is expanded
to SNS.
Another example of the complex relation between the offline and the virtual is that offline
acquaintances seem to create some kind of moral struggle as has been demonstrated in our concept
fence management and for instance by Cecilia (24): “[b]ut if they add you [on SNS] and you see them
every day in the gym, you can’t not accept them, even though you don’t want to add them”. It can be
concluded that online friendships are not always offline friendships. In the same fashion a ‘like’ does
not necessarily mean fondness but can also be the result of certain pressures like offline peer
pressure or for strategic reasons. We further develop our concept of fence management to the
‘unwanted neighbour’; representing a constant struggle and active judging on who should be
43
Roos & Wolters 2014
included in the network and whom should not. The key problem is that nowadays, there is a choice
whether to include someone or not, a choice that was non-existent a few generations ago when one
was placed in a locality, within a community, and with neighbours on which one was to some extent
dependent for social support and interaction. Cecilia’s quote as well as the stories of Susanne and
Aris on the previous page are examples of the pressures exerted by ‘unwanted neighbours’; offline
social ties that in the offline world have a specific label, such as parents, or acquaintances, that have
a specific function, such as control or a professional relation, and that certainly cannot be categorized
as friends. In some cases, the decision is easy, e.g. in the case of Willyant (17): ‘’I sometimes get
added by weird Moroccans that I don’t know. I find that so nasty, I directly delete them’’. However, in
most cases the decision is not so easy: Willyant and Rixt (16) talk about a neighbour: “[a]lways when
we want to go somewhere he wants to come with us as well, it is really annoying’’. They do not want
to exclude him from their networks, because that would be rude. However, they also want to expose
their plans on Facebook, the platform they use for planning their activities with other friends, risking
that their ‘unwanted neighbour’ looks over the hypothetical fence and wants to join in. The little
privacy that a physical fence used to offer is no longer in effect; SNS let people see what we do, and
we let them.
Another deep, problematic aspect of virtual networking drifts to the surface here: the limited ability
to classify or categorize network members. Aris (23) illustrated this nicely during one of the focus
groups by saying: “[t]here’s a certain context to every social contact, you want to be able to place
relationships into context. Facebook doesn’t allow you to do this. Facebook is like, everyone either on
that line or on that line. But it takes more.’’
As mentioned earlier on, social interaction and communication is now multimodal and that results in
a more complex social system that requires more cognitive effort but which at the same time is made
easier through technology, for instance the powerful drive of companies to design and invent
devices, technologies and applications that aim to make sharing and connecting easier than ever
before.
As online profiles are artificial representations of someone’s personality, they may not be a true
reflection of one’s offline self. Surprisingly enough, most of the participants seem fully aware of this:
‘’[a]ll of the public info is so ‘thought out’, people aren’t spontaneous on Facebook, you can see that
people post stuff that really goes well together with their identity, or what they want to portray’’
(Aris, 23). However, it can be argued that in some way, online representations do reveal one’s
personality: as the avatar is the creation of someone, and how this person decides to act online is to
a certain extent a reflection of his or her true person. However, - and here the problem of context
44
Roos & Wolters 2014
comes in again- if members of a personal network do not or not sufficiently know a person to place
his or her posts into the bigger context of their total offline identity, the only thing the members will
see is what this person discloses on SNS. Simon (25) refers to this as a ‘polished surface’, as if online
profiles just reveal the tip of the iceberg, whereas the reality is much more comprehensive.
We argue that online self-representations are just as real as real-life identities, as it is the same
person that acts upon both types of identity, however, virtual identities are incomplete and result in a
severe bias when it comes to interpersonal comparisons. The next chapter will investigate this tense
relationship between real and idealized identities more closely.
5.3 T ENSIONS
AROU ND
S OCIAL C OMPARISON IN C ONTEMPORARY C ONSUMER
S OCIETY AND ITS E FFECTS
As we have seen, there appears to be a difference between virtual and actual selves, on a perceptual
level. Now that we have identified certain important aspects of SNS, we can continue with analysing
the data in regards to our main theme: social comparison. In short, we find that SNS are not always
‘social’ forms of media, and this chapter sets out the analysis of rich data that relates to both the
social as the non-social uses of digital networks. Our definition of social is that it refers to a way of
thinking that includes others, whereas non-social refers to a way of thinking that excludes others to a
large extent and has a primarily ego-centric viewpoint. In the second subchapter, we find that the
current form of social comparison results in a need for social evolution and we find significant
problems in attempting to adapt to this.
5.3.1 S O CI A L C O M P A R I SO N
V ER SU S
S O LI P SI S M
In this chapter we illustrate the expansion of reference frames, the functions of SNS in terms of social
comparison, the role of the local, hybridized communication systems in relation to the social
multiplier followed by the discussion of online neighbourhoods and their two main functions.
Returning to reference frames, we discuss the quantity of social information that is being
communicated, after which the nature of this social information is discussed, as well as ‘how’ it is
communicated by computer-mediated means. We continue with an account of commodification of
identities and relationships, touching upon the tension between real and virtual fake identities and
the awareness that exists around superficial characters. This is followed by the finding that many
virtual relations have a strong utilitarian character and eventually we introduce the ‘glocal’
neighbour. As a transition to the following chapter, we reflect upon the effects of all of the presented
dynamics on emotional well-being.
45
Roos & Wolters 2014
Expanded Reference Frames
As has been established in existing literature described earlier in this paper, reference frames are
important structures that accommodate social comparison processes. We find that reference frames
have expanded through SNS, arguing that those network ties are also included in our participants’
frames of reference. Network members, including even those that are perceived a weak contacts, are
still included in frames of reference and have an effect on behaviour, needs and wants: “[i]f my not
really good friends post a travel report of a really good surfing spot, I still feel like I should go there
even though I barely know them” (Joggli, 24). With an increased access to vague contacts, weak ties,
as well as easy access to style icons, the frames of reference thus expand, resulting in a growing
amount of people that SNS users compare their lives to. This was also noted, a bit more consciously,
by Arjan (27): ‘’[t]hrough digitalization you can see what is possible which makes you feel incomplete
and discontent” As we have noted earlier on, digitalization has strong effects on perceptions on
locality and the global, and this of course, is closely related to the expansion of reference frames.
This results in feelings of missing out; ‘the grass is greener on the other side’. We connect and
compare to people around the world, comparing ourselves more and more to ‘outsiders’: ‘’[a]ctually,
I think it has a pretty large influence though, because you consider so many different alternatives, see
all these other people… Where I come from for example, the mentality is just so different, everyone
just stays where they are, and they feel comfortable with the environment. I’m basically the only one
that is going abroad and that is just like my parents say: “how can you live abroad?!’’ I think the
reason that I actually considered going abroad was due to contacts and maybe even social networks
I’d say. You consider so many different alternatives because you see them, you have the access to it.’’
(Rita, 27). It can be argued with Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006) that people living in the locally
constrained periphery like Rita, are especially globally oriented since her aspired lifestyle is not
present locally.
Even though reference frames have undoubtedly expanded this does not necessarily mean that
traditional and local frames of reference have become irrelevant; they rather have been
complemented: “[w]hen I go to my parents’ house, you always compare to each other but you also
compare online so I think it has expanded, the one has not shut of the other.’’(Cecilia, 24). In other
words, ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ appears to be still a relevant phenomenon, but it functions
multimodal. This can also be seen in the conversation between Aris (23) and Cecilia (24) about
kitchen renovations displayed offline and online:
Aris: ‘’We lived at a house and we remodelled, renovated our kitchen and it was like a small kitchen
but we took it out and removed it, but when we did that, it was a visible change from the outside and
46
Roos & Wolters 2014
all the neighbours that passed by started knocking and saying: ‘’hey, can we come in, I saw you
changed the kitchen!’’ and they came in and really liked it and almost two years later (…) everyone
had done it.”
Cecilia (24): ‘’Some, people these days, when they are renovating (1) they put up those pictures
online, and (2) all the friends would see that and (3) also want to renovate the kitchen, so yeah it has
expanded. I see it all the time: ‘we are renovating’, or: ‘buying a new house’…’’ Three things can be
observed here. Firstly, SNS are being used to make things visible that could not be displayed before
as indicated by number one, for instance renovation inside the house. Secondly, SNS accommodate
this display to a much wider audience that reaches much further than the street. Thirdly, there is an
awareness of the fact that relative consumption is still an important determinant of what people buy.
Again, the local reality still plays a role here, as not every network member discloses all insights in
what they do or what they own on SNS. An important example of how people automatically compare
and reflect upon themselves when faced with new information about others, whether in what they
perceive as the real world, or in the virtual world, is the following: ‘’[e]ven now as students, we live in
a corridor, and we do the ‘tour the chambre’, this is the time you actually see the other rooms and
how people are designing the same room, in the same corridor, and it is interesting to see how people
do it differently. You start thinking like “oh it would be nice to have a sofa there or a TV, I don’t see
how I could get this (comparison) by going online” (Niklas, 25).
So, whether it is seeing holiday pictures of a vague friend online, or seeing how your physical
neighbour decorates a similar space that you occupy, in both cases this information is instantly
absorbed, and compared to the situation of one self, resulting often in an urge to ‘Keep up with the
Joneses’. However, it should again be noted that these two forms of information continue to overlap
in contemporary society. The following example illustrates how one can compare, and be affected
by, the goods that physical neighbours have, without having to actually know or even see them. It
also illustrates how the availability of information online expands the reference frame that is being
used for consumption decisions and thus expands the social multiplier effect, Aleksandra (24): ‘’[i]n
my apartment building we have a group on Facebook so when the kids (students) moved out last
semester, everyone was selling stuff and posted whatever they had, they literary try to sell spoons…
But then you see… I don’t know, everyone always tells me that my room is so cold. I have no pictures,
I have nothing. I just move, I have nothing (homey) and I don’t care. But I bought an Easter bunny
now. When I saw them posting everything they had, I realized that if I actually had bought something
it would have been nicer here. Someone even bought an armchair, and I was like ‘I wish I had an
armchair’. I ended up not buying anything because I am still leaving in one or two months but I
47
Roos & Wolters 2014
bought an Easter bunny because everyone was saying I had nothing. They said that offline, but when I
was looking online to everything they had, I saw people that had flowers and plants and everything.
And I wish I had that. That is how I bought my Easter bunny’’.
Online Neighbourhoods.
Aleksandra, in contrast of Niklas’s example above, is primarily affected in her behaviour through the
digital information she is faced with, even though this information concerns her direct neighbours. So
when Niklas states that “I don’t see how I could get this (comparison) by going online”, he overlooks
the fact that many neighbours, especially in student cities, now form online communities in which
they exert the same functions as traditional neighbours. On the Facebook profiles of the participants,
we found that most of them are member of one, if not two, community groups that are related to a
building, apartment complex, or neighbourhood. For instance: ‘Tenants at Palsjoang’ (Aleksandra),
‘Klostergarden 2013/2014’ (Alex, Simon, Elizabeth, Renske, Thomas) and even sub-communities like
‘The cool corridor of Klostergarden’ (Thomas). These groups have two main functions: the social
support function and the exchange/ utility function.
As we found in our literature search, the neighbour has frequent face-to-face contact as a
distinguishing factor, and is especially useful for services based on territoriality and often is called
upon last-minute. What is interesting here is that within online neighbour communities, frequent
face-to-face contact is not a given; outside the dinner get-together’s or soccer meetings, there is not
much contact. However, people do call for help on a daily basis, borrowing tools, ingredients, or
asking for advice that exceeds territorial boundaries and therefore range from asking why the
common laundry machine is not working to what places in Europe are recommended to visit. In this
sense, SNS are effective and time-saving tools for receiving direct social support from multiple
neighbours at the same time. Which we can relate to the expert neighbour discussed in chapter
5.1.1. Additionally, the fact that those communities are constituted by students implies that most of
the inhabitants have limited financial resources and are therefore more dependent on social support
such as sharing expensive tools than they would be in later life stages. Therefore, there is a strong
social character to these communities while at the same time one is not likely to connect to their
neighbours for purely social reasons. For example, Alex (27) uses the ‘Klostergarden 2013/2014’
group to meet up with people to play soccer next to the apartment buildings but not so much to get
to know people: “I don’t really know my neighbours here, Martin and Flo to play Fifa with, but I don’t
really know them.’’. In some sense, Martin and Flo here are ‘hired’, they have a utilitarian character
in the sense that Alex needs them for entertainment, but doesn’t make any efforts to build strong
relationships with them since they will likely never see each other again when they leave the city.
48
Roos & Wolters 2014
There is a continuous flow of goods to be observed; people are moving out, moving in, or selling
commodities for other reasons. This has not so much to do with displaying goods for identity
building, but, as we have previously seen in the example of Aleksandra’s (24) Easter bunny, they do
create an increased awareness in what others own, and how others decorate their rooms. It is
important to note that all of these Facebook groups are typically related to student accommodation
which implies three aspects: the time people occupy the space is in most cases no longer than one
year so investments in furniture will not pay off sufficiently, and secondly, that a common
assumption among members is that most of the members have limited (financial) resources and thus
sharing and helping out become more important incentives when it comes to sharing, pricing or
giving away goods. Therefore, despite the utilitarian character that was mentioned before, this
dependence accommodates stronger feelings of community. A third aspect is that these student
rooms are highly standardized, making comparison not only easier, but also inevitable: the excuse of
having a different room to work with is not valid.
As this study uses neighbour relations to look at social comparison in general, these findings are
important to keep in mind when considering social comparison processes online and offline at a larger
level, including the entire network and not limiting the focus to neighbour influences.
This duality of social and non-social or utilitarian behaviour can also be observed on a larger scale.
There are different dimensions of social behaviour to be observed among our participants. As we
have seen, people’s reference frames have undergone significant expansion through SNS. Given that
the social multiplier has expanded with it, there is an observable expansion in the needs and wants
that are being created through social comparison, in the words of Rita (27): ‘’[y]our [Thomas’s]
brother for example, posts amazing pictures of South Africa and you really think… (…) Ah man, I
would like to do that. Your start to rethink your own choices, it [Facebook] broadens your horizon that
you consider other things that you might not have taken into consideration before.’’. Rita has met
Thomas’s brother once in her life. Yet he has, without even knowing perhaps, a significant effect on
the needs and wants of Rita, from the other end of the world. With expanding networks, and with an
increasing load of information about what is ‘out there’ in terms of consumption goods and leisure,
consumption behaviour cannot remain unaffected.
This effect on consumption behaviour does not solely stem from the ability to compare to people
around the world, the quantity of information. There is something much more fundamental, much
deeper that influences this: the nature of this information.
The first important finding when talking about the nature of the social information that is being
communicated within SNS is that single goods or brands may not play the biggest role; it is complete
49
Roos & Wolters 2014
lifestyles that are largely built upon the consumption of goods, leisure, travelling, political ideas, but
not limited to them, as these lifestyles include also actions, achievements and experiences. However,
as this research is conducted within a consumerist society, most of the above are closely related to
consumption. Julia (27) brings up that: “[i]t’s more the social and the hobbies and interests that
defines me online, rather than pictures my equipment or whatever”. Joggli (24) says: “[h]aving a
MacBook shows some sort of lifestyle that others want to identify with” and Arjan (27) states: “I have
a friend that posts a lot of photos of healthy dishes he cooks and that definitely makes me want to
live healthier and be more conscious. These are good things I think.’’. In other words, it is not so much
the material goods that are being put to use, most of the comparison extend to the level of a
complete lifestyle. Strikingly, during all of our focus groups that typically dealt with social comparison
in the sense of ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’, goods are rarely mentioned. Of course, this lifestyle
brings along certain changes in consumption choices and patterns, but on a much larger scale than
just one single product or brand. Adapting a healthy lifestyle for instance, does not prescribe a
certain brand of food (not directly, at least, but one could imagine that organic and ecological brands
are in favour here), however it could prescribe the consumption of a gym membership, and less
consumption of alcohol and fast-food.
This also relates to our second main finding in relation to the nature of the information within SNS:
the information should strengthen one’s personal identity. Contrary to real life situations, SNS allows
people to select, edit and modify what others get to see. In other words, there is a strong solipsistic
character to it: ‘’[f]riendship is very selective in the way that I choose how much I want to talk. How
much I want to tell you. So when we chat, it is much easier to show a certain side of me and talk
about certain stuff. I think it is nice to keep in touch but I don’t think it evolves the friendship very
much.’’(Aris, 23). This applies not only to conversations in chats; it also applies to what people post
on their public Facebook walls. “Everyone posts the best stuff of their life, not that you’re having a
bad day. So it is not a true reflection of life.” (Jenno, 26). And it goes further than exclusion of
disadvantageous information, people might actually go as far as lying, or blowing up experiences:
“When you ask them: ‘how was the party’, they say ‘hmm, it was okay’, whilst on Facebook you see
them posting like: ‘This party is awesome!’ and selfies with beer.” (Willyant, 17). In addition to
showing just the bright side of life to strengthen one’s identity, the information that is disclosed or
shared with the network members should fit one’s aspired lifestyle. In other words, next to creating
what we call ‘idealised selves’, there is strong sense of what we call ‘impression management’.
Impression management comes across as something that is almost perceived as a skill, something
that can be learned through experience.
50
Roos & Wolters 2014
There is a personal attachment to this product, the idealised self. There is a certain style, a personal
touch, which is attached to this artificial self as if one puts his soul into his artificial product. This is
because one creates the online identity that he or she aspires, which is a reflection of one’s true
personality. This is where we find the classic paradox of distinction and its inherent dependence on
belonging. For instance, Arjan (27) states: “I’m a silent Facebooker; I watch other people struggle.’’,
consciously distancing himself from other and thus creating distinction. However, early on in the
conversation he says: “[t]ravelling is perceived as cool so that is why people share it.’’ while later, he
states: “I don’t usually post but I do when I go travelling, to show that my life is exciting’’, indicating a
more conformist behaviour. This illustrates the tension between standing out and belonging to a
certain lifestyle, as well as the tension between one’s real and one’s digital identity.
Another example of a struggle to find the right balance between belonging (conformist) and
distinction (anti-conformist) is that Willyant (17) says: “[a]nd that while you know how they look like
in real life!” and Rixt (16) says: “[t]hose selfies are so fake!’’ while both of them posted a selfie on the
day after the focus group. On the one hand, they look down on the superficiality of the selfie, but on
the other hand they are part of this narcissistic trend themselves as well. The same can be observed
when the participants talk about neknominations; there is mutual agreement on the silliness of it, yet
most participants participated.
Overall, we can observe a form of conscious awareness about what is truthful information and what
is not. The awareness is just as present among the younger focus group participants as the older.
Additionally, even behaviour of good friends is actively being questioned during a discussion
between Jenno (26) and Arjan (27) about a close friend’s incentives for posting beautiful pictures of
nature. They debate whether these pictures are shared for self-image or simply for sharing the
wonders of nature. In other words, the ‘realness’ of online identities and incentives of posting are
often questioned even among good friends.
The previous part discussed the primarily social uses of SNS, also noting that there is always a nonsocial or anti-social aspect in it. We identified the same duality in the virtual neighbourhoods; having
a social function as well as an exchange or utilitarian function. This duality, we find, applies to the use
of SNS as a whole. Throughout this chapter, we have highlighted several important aspects of social
comparison processes that take place in a highly digitalized world. Therefore we move on to discuss
the solipsistic and utilitarian use of SNS that although taking place in a social environment, is
predominantly selfish.
We found, rather shockingly, that people are more and more seen as products. A reason for this
could be as was discussed before: creating an identity as products, marketing and advertising them
51
Roos & Wolters 2014
consciously and strategically, and then reaping fruits of recognition and status. The logical result of
creating these virtual identities that are not a truly complete reflection of you, but rather your
product, is that people actually start shopping friends based on product traits: “I’d like to think when
I go somewhere that I can call them for a place to crash a day or two. That is basically the only
reason, I have them in my network.” (Aleksandra, 24). And as Alex (27) states: “I hope they get really
good jobs later so I can say: “Hey, hook me up!” And it is not really a hassle for me to have them in, so
why kick them out?’’. Also, friends can be included for strategic goals, to reach a certain level of social
status: “I use it strategically, for instance some of my brothers friends have really high job positions.
Thus, I add them as ‘friend’ but not really to have conversations or just to have them as a contact.”
(Julia, 27). The lingo that is being used when talking about this matter is also possessive, rather than
connective: ‘to have someone in Rome’ or ‘I had someone in Bratislava’.
Feelings of envy are strongly related to social comparison processes and are being found among
many of the participants, indicating that the main driver of the social multiplier is still in effect.
Susanne (24) states: “[p]ictures from when you're abroad and nice beaches and so on, those pictures I
don’t think they create pressure for other people but they are intended to say 'Hey its awesome here
and I want to make you jealous, aaaah you’re at home in the rain and I’m sitting here”. On the other
hand, people appear to answer this call for envy: “When I see pictures from beautiful beaches I would
love to be there as well.’’ (Sjoukje, 16). As we found earlier, feelings of envy typically occur around
leisure, around experiences, and not so much around goods.
On the other hand, feelings of happiness are present. The fun factor is for most people one of the
main reasons to embark in social interaction online. For instance, Alex (27), talks about a funny joke
he posted in the following way: ‘’[i]f it makes me laugh, it makes other people laugh, and who am I to
keep people from happiness?’’ Additionally, many of the participants that participated in the
neknominations state that they did have a significant amount of fun while doing it, even though the
fun part lies outside of the virtual realm; it is triggered by it, but it reinstates the importance of the
offline as an important component of human interactions. Accordingly, happiness is increased when
positive feedback on pictures is given: “That really felt good’’ (Willyant, 17). However, happiness can
also be ‘faked’ in SNS: ‘’[p]eople whine so much on Facebook, then in school they seem all happy and
on Facebook they post all depressing thoughts. When you ask them on Facebook what’s up, they say
“oooh nothing!’’ Here we see a reversed sense of impression management, being all but ideal in the
virtual environment, and being or acting happy within offline situations.
Summarizing, we have illustrated the expansion of reference frames, the functions of SNS in terms of
social comparison, the role of the local, hybridized systems in relation to the social multiplier, online
52
Roos & Wolters 2014
neighbourhoods and their two main functions being social support and exchanges of utilities. Then we
turned back to reference frames, discussing the quantity of social information that is being
communicated, after which the nature of this information was discussed, as well as ‘how’ it is
communicated. This is followed by the finding that many virtual relations have a strong utilitarian
character. We should add here, that these dynamics have certain effects on emotional well-being.
Firstly, a primary function that exists along with social comparison efforts is in fact; envy, and
secondly, there are some indications that SNS do enhance feelings of happiness. The next chapter will
further set out our findings that relate to the above, and will discuss the ways in which people seem
to adapt to these tensions.
5.3.2 A D AP T A BI LI T Y
V ER S US
A N XI E T Y
In the past chapters we have seen how many tensions in social structure are created due to the
digitalization and influences of SNS. In our research it has become apparent that participants do a
brave attempt in adapting to the changes in social behaviour created by these tensions. Many
concepts that have been discussed in previous literature like social comparison still play a big part in
our lives. However, the way in which social comparison is manifested has dramatically changed from
offline to an online environment in which you compare yourself with on average 338 ‘friends’ (Smith,
2014).
In our analysis we found, how deeply SNS are embedded in our culture. This can be interpreted by
the statement of Willyant (17): “Facebook is part of my rituals, so I never miss out a day on Facebook,
I always automatically check it.” As it has been only a few years since the dot.com bubble burst in
2000 (Curtis, 2013), this shows how in 14 years society has adapted to this new form of social life
that manifests itself primarily digital.
Another form of adaptability that we have found is the influence of SNS on youth culture. One
change that was perceived by our participants is stated by Aris (23): “[p]eople also grow up more
quickly. Because they become aware that people judge them, and they judge and get judged much
earlier’’. Aris’ statement indicates how this influences the children in growing up more quickly in the
digital society. We noticed this also in our focus group of the younger generation by merely talking to
them and hearing their well thought out, into perspective, future orientated answers. This younger
generation seems to be some kind of hybrid between teenagers and adults. Elisabeth (26) continues
with a statement that relates to the influence on consumption behaviour of these teenage adults: “I
think it’s different [then it used to be], I also have people in my family at that age [13-14 years] now,
and they are more like small adults, they buy clothes at the same stores as we do and they care more
about the style rather than the price or brand. It’s a bit strange.” As we can see from this statement,
53
Roos & Wolters 2014
the ‘younger’ generation really creates its own grown up style and the part where Elisabeth says they
‘buy clothes at the same store as we do’ indicates how this younger generation imitates the style of
the older. We argue that SNS play a big role in how kids grow up and how they consume.
Furthermore, it appears that the teenage adults are not so much influenced by certain big brands
anymore as Elisabeth stated and Alex (27) confirms: “I think when I was in that same thing that I had
to buy stuff, I have to siblings that are now 13 and 14 and they are now in that age where they should
be like that as well but they’re not because they have H&M and Zara and all that, brands nowadays.”
In this quote Alex is referring to when he was 13 and he felt the offline pressure of class peers to
have to buy something in order to belong. It seems that the young generation nowadays does not
feel like that. This can indicate that the younger generation is becoming more individualistic and is
not much influenced by what others think of their clothes, or what they communicate with their
clothes.
Just as businesses need to adapt in order to survive, so must people. Digitalization processes have
created not only an extreme fast pace of change but also created a network with many people that
we feel we need to conform to. Niklas (25) states: “[m]aybe instead of 20 people in your school class,
now, you have 200 friends, you have to conform to’’. The power of groups has always been apparent
although it may have been more clearly restricted. If people were part of one group, they did not
have to be part of the other. Yet in your social network with people having on average 338 friends,
there is a hybrid of different groups with different opinions, beliefs and systems. In one person’s
network there are so many different relations and heterogeneous entities that it is hard to conform
to all of them even though there is the feeling “…you have to”.
In the literature review we have highlighted how consumption is a major form of showing someone
your status. We believe that this has extended, goods are not the only way of showing someone your
status but during our analysis the importance of ‘likes’ e.g. as a status symbol also became apparent.
People want other people to see and know how many likes they have and this creates a certain form
of respect. As Willyant (17) says proudly: “[t]his time when I changed my profile picture I got 186
likes.” This news was answered by her friends with admiring words as: “wow” and “that is so cool” .
The likes in this case had the same effect as if she would have shown a certain luxury good as main
indicator of her status. Status symbols and one’s social status in general have been widely discussed
in sociology. However, it is interesting to see the new form it takes and also its influence on social
mobility, the movement of people in across social positions. We believe that this is one of the
reasons that people are striving for as many ‘likes’, re-tweets etc. as possible. Elisabeth (26) states: “I
think in the future I just put on picture I like, it is all different, you never know which picture is going to
54
Roos & Wolters 2014
get more likes than another, it is hard to get some standard criteria”. She indicates that she “in the
future” will put pictures on Facebook that she likes, thus in the present she mainly posts pictures to
get Facebook ‘likes’. She confirms this later by saying: “[o]f course it makes you happy that you get a
lot of likes. That means your picture is nice”. There is a direct link between the amount of ‘likes’ and
how happy that makes her and, more interestingly, she uses the likes as some kind of confirmation
that her picture really is nice.
The hunt for ‘likes’ results also in how strategically the participants ‘brand’ themselves. As Rita (27)
states: “[i]f you upload a picture at six in the morning you probably won’t get as many likes as in the
evening.” So one starts to strategically think about when to post and also how exactly to post it in
order to get the most ‘likes’ out of it. As stated by Alex (27): “My girlfriend takes sometimes 30
minutes to write one post and then checks every 10 minutes how much likes she got in already”. This
really demonstrates the importance for people to collect these ‘likes’. Either in order to get
confirmation how nice their picture is or to show others how great their life is and to make sure that
others recognize that too. We find that efforts to collect status and recognition go as far as setting
out impression management strategies as if it were a branding campaign with advertisements in
form of posts being launched on a regular basis.
Thus, the digitalization brings a lot of change in a rapid pace and we either adapt or we fail to adapt
and lag behind. This brings us in a state to which there is continuously pressure on us and the failure
to adapt leads to a lot of anxiety in our contemporary society. These findings will be discussed in the
next section.
During our research different forms of pressure became apparent. As we discussed earlier it is hard
to classify relationships within SNS. This results in people feeling pressure of whom to add in their
network. As Cecilia (24) states: “[b]ut if they add you and you see them every day in the gym I cannot
not accept them, even though you don’t really want to add them”. This also shows a form of offline
pressure to befriend someone online. It seems like the relationship in the gym is fairly shallow and
therefore Cecilia does not feel the need to be friends with her acquaintances from the gym.
However, this is experienced differently by those acquaintances. She is pressured to add them to her
SNS, even though she does not want to, because otherwise this might jeopardise her offline relation.
A similar quote comes from Aleksandra (24): “I can’t ignore them. It’s rude, especially since they’re
older and are my parents friends, so I add them”. Here we see again the offline pressure to befriend
someone online. But furthermore, we see here that she is driven to the circumstances in which she
feels a dichotomy, she feels trapped. She wants to “ignore” them, but she cannot out of respect for
their age and the close offline connections with her parents so there is nothing else to do then to add
55
Roos & Wolters 2014
them. It can be interpreted in the way that we have discussed earlier, the need to conform. She will
therefore add them against her own will just to not change the good image that they have of her
now to an image that she is “rude”.
An interesting finding relating to pressure as well, is what we have found to be the pressure to ‘like
or engage’. To maintain social online relations people feel pushed to comment or ‘like’ different
statuses. As experienced by Aleksandra (24): “[s]ometimes, I kind of push myself to like or comment.
For example if someone got a baby, then I see all my friends saying, congratulations, and this are not
the most closes people to me”. Participants do feel the pressure to ‘like’ and ‘engage’ because
everyone else is doing it. It is similar to what Aris (23) said: “[w]hat kind of person am I to not ‘like’
it”. And in our conversation with Alex (27) he states: “[w]auw, did you see how many likes Jannie got?
I did not think the picture was that pretty”. Yet we saw that Alex did press the ‘like’ button for this
picture as well. When confronting him with that and asking why he still ‘liked’ it even though he
claimed to not like it he answered: “just because she had so many ‘likes’ already”. We interpret here
a feeling that even tough Alex personally does not like it, he is in a state that he believes he should
like it because the picture has ‘so many likes’ already. Here we detect a form of clouding your own
judgement in a way that if a picture gets so many ‘likes’ it must be nice. So he feels a need to show
that he recognizes the beauty, even though he does not.
It became apparent that even though SNS are already so much embedded in our culture, it still puts
people in confusing situations. Situations in which you do not know what to say or how to react: “[i]f
someone posts something like an obituary, should you press ‘like’ or do you have to comment with
‘sorry I for you?’ I mean I don’t know...” (Cecilia, 24). The focus group confirmed that these are
difficult situations in which it is not clear what to do. An existing etiquette or requirements as to
social behaviour online appears to be missing.
We have found that anxiety is also experienced by people that want to keep up with all the many
different SNS which all have their own norms: “I think there is a lot of pressure in the sense that there
are different social media channels that focus on different things. So there is a lot of pressure of being
a good business professional on LinkedIn and then you have to have this social perfect life, do all this
fun stuff all the time that you have on Facebook and Instagram.” (Elisabeth, 26). You have to manage
your personal brand building and market your personality, but on every different platform there is a
need to create a different image of yourself. Personal branding is a concept that has been around in
literature (e.g. (Ries & Trout, 1981)) and an increasing form of personal branding includes the online
identity management. For this purpose one wants to communicate his core values to the outside
world, however, it is hard to decide on your core values as there are so many different networks with
56
Roos & Wolters 2014
different expectations. And on every network one desires to be the best, as every good brand
requires a notion of expertise. This creates, as Elisabeth (26) states: “…a lot of pressure”.
As has been discussed, an incentive to use social media and to be constantly connected is the ‘Fear of
Missing Out’ on information as described in the literature. The concept ‘FoMo’ creates increasingly
more anxiety and not only on information but also the FoMo became apparent related to the
constant need to keep up with the lifestyles of ‘the Joneses’. FoMo is a concept recently broadly
discussed in sociological literature (e.g. (Przybylski et al., 2013)). We have detected a few forms of
FoMo related to the social multiplier effect of goods. As stated by Jakob (17): “I want to see it
[clothes] on someone and when, I like it I buy it”. Or as stated by Sjoukje (16): “I always see what
other people have, and when I like it I want it too”. This can be seen directly in relation to ‘Keeping up
with the Joneses’ which works in essence in the exact same way. FoMo is experienced by consumers
when they feel that they have many options. For instance, you see someone wear certain clothes and
you feel that you could have it too. The consumer becomes aware of different attractive
opportunities. They then want to exhaust all the best opportunities and the fear to get limited by
time or money in their choices makes them anxious. We argue that this concept has significantly
increased due to SNS as consumers see even more possibilities from people all over the world. One
might expect that therefore the FoMo in relation to consumer goods has increased as well. However,
as we have discovered in our research, there is in fact a backlash of this concept. ‘Keeping up with
Joneses’ was often regarded to the actual collection of material goods, but in our research it has
multiple times shown that despite Jakob’s and Sjoukje’s statement the collection of goods is not that
much of an influence. The biggest influence on the participants was seeing the opportunities of
experiences like travels and experiences.
In this chapter we have found that by failing to completely adapt to the new forms of social
interaction a lot of pressure, confusion and anxiety is created. We highlighted our findings in regard
to how our participants have adapted but also in which ways they experience the anxiety created by
failing to completely keep up with all their ‘Joneses’.
6. D ISCOURSE OF THE T ENSIONS
Having analysed the findings the reader might ask what these findings specifically have to do with
marketing and consumption. Our research focuses on the consumption effects of the social multiplier
and we have found two other consumption practices, specifically: the consumption of SNS and the
consumption of relationships. Our study has shown that virtualization and globalization have
influenced consumer society to such an extent that it is characterized by several tensions. In this
chapter we discuss our findings and how they contrast to or confirm the current literature. The
57
Roos & Wolters 2014
discussion of these three chapters will aid us in finding the answer to our three research subquestions and eventually support us in answering our main question.
6.1 D ISCOURSE
OF T ENSIONS AROUND THE C ONSUMPTION OF SNS
In chapter 5.1 we have seen that virtualization processes create opportunities as well as concerns.
And that people experience incentives as well as barriers to engage in SNS. This chapter will discuss
the findings of that chapter and refer it to the existing body of literature.
6.1.1 T H E D I S CO U R S E
OF
P O S SI BI LI T I ES
AN D
C O N C ERN S
One of the findings was that it is hard to end digital relationships. This confirms what is stated in our
literature review that “people strongly and generally resist the dissolution of relationships”
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p.503). Marshall (2007) adds that reasons for this are that ending
relations involves our own vulnerability and mortality and the process off ending relationships is
often found hard, embarrassing, painful and sad. However, we found that on SNS keeping relations is
mostly for selfish reasons, like the utility potential of relationships. Thus, whereas Baumeister and
Leary (1995) state that the resistance of ending relations “…go well beyond rational considerations of
practical or material advantage” we however, have a strong reason to believe that it does not go
“well beyond” but that in fact, for SNS the practical considerations are a main reason to keep
relationships. This also is connected to a new concept that we introduced as the ‘expert neighbour’.
As stated in our literature review people create an “open project of self-formation” (Tubella, 2005,
p.258). By doing so, everyone knows the exact expertise of the people in their network and can rely
on them and contact them accordingly, whenever and from wherever they need.
It also became clear that various organizations make use of the SNS to work on a good cause. One
example in our findings was the “Zwerfie”, which included the finding that there is great awareness
that people participate in this kind of activities to improve their personal image. This adds to what
we have touched upon in the literature review; Veblen’s (1899) ‘conspicuous consumption’ and
‘conspicuous leisure’ which is done to show one’s place in social structure and society. We see now
something online what is identified as ‘conspicuous compassion’ (e.g. (West, 2004)). West mostly
touches upon the activities people undertake (e.g. wearing a red nose for the starving, send flowers
to deceased celebrities). From our findings we can see that instead of physical activities people also
participate increasingly more in online activities. This is even easier shared and has an even higher
exposure so one can show more people what a caring individual one is and establish one’s place in
society.
As referred to in our literature review, social relations increasingly are created outside
neighbourhood boundaries (Keller, 1968, p.123). Our findings show that the digitalization makes it
58
Roos & Wolters 2014
increasingly difficult for people to draw relationship boundaries, we referred to this as the difficulty
of ‘fence management’. This finding confirms work of for example Karr-Wisnieski et al. (2011) that
have written about managing SNS relations. They state in their article that often people are not
aware that SNS offer tools for boundary regulations. In our research however, it appeared more that
people, even though they did not like the certain ‘unwanted’ neighbours they did not intend to
actually do something about it. Additionally in our research it appeared that most relationship
boundary issues were related to distinguishing the social – professional boundary. This is a finding
not touched upon by Karr-Wisnieski et al..
Connecting to that is our finding that our participants feel they have an overload on information and
that sometimes this information is perceived “too personal”. This is in line with the “information and
cultural overload” findings as discussed by several authors (e.g. (Muise et al., 2009)). Muise et al.
focus in their study on “more information than you ever wanted” in regard to romantic relationships.
They argue how there is an increase of jealousy in romantic relations and state: “Facebook provides a
superb forum for the study of relational jealousy, and our study only serves as a starting point.”. We
elaborate on their study, as through our study we can confirm that Facebook and other SNS not only
enhance jealousy in ‘romantic’ relationships but also in all other relationships within one’s entire
network. Additionally, we found that most jealousy causes were based on lifestyle.
As pointed out in our literature review by Sampson et al. (2002) there are several studies on the
neighbourhood and social control. In our research it has become apparent that this is still very
apparent in a sense e.g. Willyant (17) states she cannot go somewhere without her physical
neighbour noticing it. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) argue in their article about a loss of control on
information that is available about a person or organisation. Although, we agree with them on this
point, we also argue that in a sense there is actually an increase in controlling others on SNS. In our
study it has been shown that SNS are a form of control mechanism by family members. We also have
a strong reason to believe, despite what has been written by Kaplan and Haenlein, that one can
actually have an increase in information control trough presenting him/herself in exactly the way he
or she likes.
In our literature review we have seen many writers that have raised critique and concern regarding
globalization and virtualization and the effect on the future (e.g. (Ritzer, 2004) (Belk & Ger, 1996)).
Our research has contributed in showing that it is not only authors, philosophers or politicians that
have this concern, but also the current ‘ordinary’ SNS users like our participants. There is little
literature that expresses these users concern. Most literature about the concerns is in regard to
privacy concerns (e.g. (Feng & Xie, 2014) (Chen & Yonghwan, 2013)). Whereas, our research exposed
59
Roos & Wolters 2014
how participant have future concerns, in particular about how kids grow up nowadays and what the
influence of that will be on our consumption society’s social structure.
6.1.2 T H E D I S CO U R S E
O F I N C E N T I V ES AN D
B A RRI ER S
We became aware of the concept of FoMo on information, especially in regard to missing something
online and therefore be excluded in conversations offline. FoMo is a concept that has risen in
internet discussions (blogs, etcetera), yet has not been researched much in academia yet. Though in
one study, Przybylski et al. (2013) expose anxieties related to not be in touch with online
conversations happening across their network, focusing only on the online behaviour. However, the
form that we have found, - missing out online which influences you offline -, is a particular form of
FoMo that appears to be missing in the literature. In chapter 6.3.3 FoMo will be discussed more in
detail as we strongly believe that even though it also appeared as an incentive to stay connected to
SNS it has a much more significant influence on anxiety.
Two incentives to post and engage on SNS we found during our analysis are the need for attention
and the need for compassion. As has been stated in the literature review the neighbours and friends
can provide grounds for identification, self-reflection social support and feelings of belonging (Weiss,
1974) (1987) (Wellman, 1992). We have a strong reason to believe this is still the case as the
participants emphasized the importance of friendship and a good neighbour. However, our research
has shown that the social support functions nowadays have extended into the digital world. One will
be able to find online support from many more people and can gain sympathy from near-strangers.
As we have showed in the findings, some need for attention went into the extremes. The extreme
need for attention is referred to as Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) (Am, 1986). Based on our
focus group’s input and netnography we believe that SNS have increased the commonality of HPD.
Through an extra review of literature in relation to this topic, we can confirm a study by Rosen, et al.
(2013) that speak of “iDisorders” – the negative relationship between technology usage and health.
In their research they speak of Facebook’s influence on HPD and that in general people with HPD
have a network with more friends, more impression management and more general use. In relation
to our research topic we could therefore argue that the increased reference frame (the more friends)
lead to a need for more impression management to keep up with all the people within your frame
and when keeping up in the form of likes or comments does not work, people switch to a scream of
attention showing signs of HPD. It is interesting to see how more intense usage of websites that are
intended to be social, ironically, increases the signs of antisocial disorders.
Summarizing this chapter, our participants found it hard to end relations, the main reasons for
keeping relations are selfish and utilitarian. This is highly connected to our concept of the ‘expert
60
Roos & Wolters 2014
neighbour’. We found that SNS increase possibilities for conspicuous consumption practices.
Furthermore, we referred to the difficulty of fence management, in relation to an information
overload and jealousy. An important differentiation we made with other authors is the ability to
enhance information control. In addition, our research has shown that it is not only authors,
philosophers or politicians that have future concerns, but also the current ‘ordinary’ SNS users like our
participants. Lastly, we have briefly touched upon the FoMo concept and on how the need for
attention can escalate in serious (i-)disorders like HPD trough SNS usage.
6.2 D ISCOURSE
OF
T ENSIONS AROUND THE C ONTEMPORARY S ETTING
S OCIAL C OMPARISON
OF
In chapter 5.2 we have shown the findings in regards to this topic. In this chapter we take the
opportunity to elaborate on those and reflect upon our findings by aiding the literature.
6.2.1 T H E D I S CO U R S E
OF
G LO BA L
AN D
LOCAL
Regarding the relationship between the local and the global, there are some important insights to
further discuss and to reflect our findings back to established literature.
To start with, we found that in terms of consumption ideology, there are symbols, imagery and ideas
that are globally common but occur across different localities, a finding that is also reflected in the
work of Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006) in their account on local appreciation of global ideologies.
In other words, the global is undoubtedly present in many ways and in many localities. However we
believe that their terminology of ‘glocalization’ is overlooking the tense relationship between both,
and pulling them in one word might indicate that the relationship is less tense.
Additionally, we found that this global market ideology triggers the aspiration of a merely
cosmopolitan identity that is particularly globalized but does not exclude the local completely, a
finding coherent with the work of (Appadurai, 1986). As we found in the literature, social capital can
be increased by doing conscious investments in social interaction (Resnick, 2002). This strongly
relates to the cosmopolitan theories discussed in the literature review, often suggesting
cosmopolitanism to be a dominant consumer attitude that is both created and sustained by the
globalized contemporary marketplace (e.g. Thompson & Tambyah, 1999).
Holt (1997), as well as Thompson and Tambyah (1999) note that social status or capital can be
acquired through adopting cosmopolitan lifestyle attributes such as travel, as a typical
representation of openness for strangeness and exotic excitement (Belk, 1998). Our findings suggest
that travel indeed plays a vital role in trying to be cosmopolitan; whether it is in tourism, living,
studying or working abroad. In this sense, having a rich, global and diverse social network would
indicate a cosmopolitan stance towards life, one that would enhance cultural capital and social
61
Roos & Wolters 2014
status. We find that although the enhancement of social status is often done through the expansion
of networks on SNS, this is directly linked to network inclusion for purely cosmopolitan efforts. With
this finding, we develop the notion of Lin (2001), Putnam (2000) and Valenzuela et al. (2009) in
regards to offline network expansion, and we agree with Resnick (2002) that conscious investments
in social interaction are a possible way of increasing one’s social capital.
Hannerz (1990) discusses cosmopolitanism in terms of tourists opposed to locals, in which he argues
that tourists observe other cultures purely out of curiosity, rather than receiving intrinsic advantages
from it. Our findings disprove this claim as follows: we find that other cultures are only partly of
appeal for our participants in terms of curiosity, whereas the ability to use this experience in social
status enhancement processes might be much more important and would eventually serve the goal
of displaying a cosmopolitan attitude towards the world. The reason we use the wording
‘cosmopolitan attitude’ rather than ‘a cosmopolitan’ is that our findings suggest that
cosmopolitanism is typically an attitude, a motive, and not so much a state that can be reached. If it
were a state that could be achieved, than eventually we would end up with one common global
cultural orientation that lacks mere diversity, as also stressed by Levitt (1983). We find that the
structural local interpretations of the global ideology illustrate that this is not the case. This is
confirms the argument of Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006) in their account on youth culture.
We find that people are generally facing barriers that divide the local from the global, such as
language, a finding that is coherent with what Thompson and Tambyah (1999) found. However, what
appears to have been left unattended in cosmopolitan literature, is the role of language an sich as an
useful tool in the hands of aspirants for displaying cosmopolitan identity efforts (e.g. posting status
updates mainly in English even though the network consists primarily of non-English friends). We
believe that cosmopolitanism research could excel by looking beyond cultural perceptions,
consumption practice and also focussing on the communicational aspects of its manifestations. For
instance, the participants typically talked about the global and the local in terms of fast and slow,
indicating that there is a tension connected to the difference between the global and the local, a
friction of two different objects that are inseparably connected but moving at different paces.
As most of the cosmopolitan literature views cosmopolitanism as some sort of breaking free or
overcoming the local, parochial, (e.g. Holt (1997)). We contribute to community cosmopolitanism
research by bringing up the connection that appears to exist between locals and local culture and
that this connection is simultaneously negative and positive, both enabling and constraining. On the
one hand, we found a negative attitude towards the local: ‘’[e]verything goes so slow here’’ as if the
local is merely holding its members back from their cosmopolitan efforts. On the other hand, it is the
62
Roos & Wolters 2014
local that allows its members to make these efforts, because if it were on the same level with the
global, cosmopolitan efforts would not make sense because diversity would not exist. This way the
relation between the local and the global, is like selling and buying, there is no buying of culture,
when no one is selling it. This is mediated by the global, through symbols, borrowing them from all of
the different localities of which it exists. These symbols wane over time, so therefore must be given
new meanings at all times. This way, the system reinstates itself, making way for compulsory cultural
reinvention of meaningful symbols. We believe that the production of culture therefore becomes
everyone’s task, in the sense that, if we do not, we will become culturally dead. Ritzer (2004) raised
critique on globalization by explaining the cultural imperialist idea behind what he calls the
‘McDonaldization’ of society. Ritzer illustrates a common approach to globalization that can be found
throughout the literature; one that views globalization as culturally empty. We do not completely
agree with this view because, although we find that globalization does empower homogenisation
processes, we also find significant indications that indicate how total cultural homogeneity is not an
option: difference is needed to be able to position oneself in society. This becomes evident in how
our participants perceive neknominations, and indicate that globalization may not enhance cultural
enrichment, but does accommodate cultural reinvention.
Global cultural flows and increased appreciation of the global, stems from technological change and
in its slipstream the rise of global communication systems which are accessible for anyone that has
sufficient resources. Also, as we found, these developments intensely increase expectations of what
is possible in terms of solutions, lifestyles, sports, and what is available in terms of material goods.
This was also stressed by Cannon and Yaprak (2002) who identified forces that lead consumers to the
adaptation of cosmopolitan values rather than a local consumer orientation. They discuss briefly the
shift towards building the self-concept around cosmopolitan values, which we have, a decade later,
not only confirmed but also extended. For, we found that the self-concept or identity is largely build
upon the display of extraordinary experiences, new things, and especially travel. Our contribution
here is that through the commodification of relationships, contacts are now being used as symbolic
expressions of a cosmopolitan orientation that is expected to enhance social status through cultural
and social capital.
Our expectations as stated in the beginning of this chapter, the fundamental changes in perceived
remoteness and closeness, are partly proven to be appropriate. However, a more traditional sense of
who is close and who is far seems to be still present by some of the participants. Most of the
participants were found to be aware of changes in perceived proximity as an effect of globalization
processes. Our study confirms the effects on perceived proximity that were heralded decades ago by
Keller (1968) and Wellman (1979). Recently, authors such as Luttmer (2005), and Guven and
63
Roos & Wolters 2014
Sorensen (2012) suggested that neighbours still play a significant role in people’s lives in
contemporary society, which is confirmed in our findings. However, as most social-influence-model
based papers, these papers pay little to no attention to how neighbour influences are manifested
through the global communication system as a complement to existing local spheres of influence.
These are now taken into virtual worlds which indicates the cultural adaptation and re-invention that
was suggested earlier.
6.2.2 T H E D I S CO U R S E
O F T HE
VIRTUAL
AN D T H E
R EA L
The relation between the global and the local, is closely related to the tension that arise when the
virtual and the real world meet. As shown in the literature review, digitalization processes
accommodate - and political influences advocate - a more individualistic attitude towards society.
We have seen that a large share of offline interactions are directly related and influenced by one’s
virtual identity project, confirming the view that our identities are increasingly self-created by putting
to use the symbolic resources available (Tubella, 2005). Putnam (2000) has made important
contributions in regards to the erosion of communities in his work ‘Bowling Alone’, however his
argument has been revisited when virtual communities started to become more and more present in
society and were assigned the same attributes as real communities (Van Dijk, 2006). In his book ‘The
Internet Galaxy’ (2001), Castells argued that the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family - as
stated before - results in networked individualism, however, we argue with authors such as Van Dijk
(2006) that stress that more individuals spend more and more time online, but that this does not
mean they behave non-social. What is evident in our findings is the coherence with authors such as
Thomson (1995) that argued that digitalization processes have altered the organization of social life.
We confirm that digitalization processes create new forms of relationships and novel ways of relating
and interaction among individuals, for instance looking at the notions of ‘unwanted neighbour’,
‘expert neighbour’ and the ‘glocal neighbour’ that we saw emerge from our data. It is evident that
these new forms of global communication help the social systems recreate themselves and alter
social concepts like identity and community; blurring geographical and cultural boundaries and
expanding social networks and communications (Tubella, 2005). Also, our research shows that we
live in exciting times in terms of discovering the modern application of more traditional sociological
and consumer-related concepts and theories, and understanding them.
In terms of consumption then, we illustrated how Facebook, which is a strictly social environment,
has allowed us to consume social relations. There is, to a large extend, the ability to ignore
information and, more dramatically, persons, without facing direct consequences. This leaves us with
an enormous expansion of consumer choice options in regards to social interaction. Choice,
according to Schwartz (2004), is ‘’[w]hat enables each person to pursue precisely those objects and
64
Roos & Wolters 2014
activities that best satisfy his or her own preferences within the limits of his or her financial
resources.’’(p.99). But what if these ‘objects’ come with no price tag, in the form of Facebook
friends? Virtual friendships become consumer goods, and can, just like tangible products, be used for
identity creation or personal gratification. This commercialization of identity will be discussed in
chapter 6.3.1.
In regards to virtual and real worlds, it appears that the current generation of young adults has
experienced living in both worlds; it has experienced the traditional social interactions in the preinternet era, at the same time witnessing the internet causing a shift and perhaps, erosion, of
relationships and interaction in their lives as young adults. Disoriented as they seemed, they appear
to be the product of radical changes in communication, driven by technology. We find some evidence
for ‘a generational divide’ between those that grew up digital and those who did not, what was
suggested by Castells (2010), and brings out the on-going academic debate around digital natives and
digital immigrants. Here, we found proof that goes for example, against Prensky’s (2001) vision of a
digital native, in which all young people who have been raised during the rise of the PC and the
internet are natives and that the rest is automatically; digital immigrants. A ‘digital native’ is then
defined as an individual who has grown up with, and adapted to, digital technology. Immigrants
however have been exposed later and mistrust it, whilst not being able to adapt quickly enough. We
have found, like Dede (2005) that such is not the case; attitude towards digital systems varies
between persons and not strictly between generations. It is important to raise awareness for our
findings in regards to sceptical attitudes among both the younger and the older focus groups. There
is a dominant attitude amongst most of our participants that can be described not so much as fear,
but as suspicious and anxious. Realness of the virtual world is often questioned, even by young
teenagers. It seems that, in order for the digital native and immigrant hypothesis to hold truth, this
divide should perhaps be seen over a few generations, as it appears that digital systems are, although
deeply embedded in the lives of our participants, still being viewed as somewhat intrusive with
traditional social interactions. Bennett (2012) noted that most research concerning the adaption and
magnitude of the role of digital-ness is survey based and called for qualitative depth-analysis such as
this study. We found that digital systems are not so much embraced by what Prensky called ‘digital
natives’; they are rather forced upon them by the need for its practical use for work or school, or in
stronger presence, the need for social comparison, belonging and self-actualization. We do however
find that the virtual has an increased influence on the quality of actual conversations and is
increasingly present in young people’s lives. For instance, the neknominations exist of both physically
offline (the drinking) and virtual acts (the sharing online) that are needed to create a complete act of
participation in a trend, and if one part is missing, some acts are not perceived valid or ‘real’.
65
Roos & Wolters 2014
We found some examples of the pressures exerted by what we called the ‘unwanted neighbours’;
offline social ties that in the offline world have a specific label, such as parents, or acquaintances,
that have a specific function, such as control or a professional relation, and that usually cannot be
categorized as friends. However, they are for various reasons accepted into the network, causing
certain problems in terms of ‘looking over the fence’ even though participants wanted to keep them
out. This is an example of the deeper, problematic aspect of virtual networking: the limited ability to
classify or categorize network members. Boyd (2004) notes that therefore we simply identify anyone
we not actively dislike as ‘friend’, since that is the only option. In our opinion however, she does not
stress enough the problematic effect on self-disclosure. This has become apparent in our study and
confirms what has been stated by Gladly, Gross and Acquisti (2005), who seem more aware of the
fundamental differences between online and offline ties.
As technologies develop, we find that virtual networks are therefore becoming what Castells (2010)
calls a ‘real virtuality’ that is a part of an increasingly hybridized life, also referred to as a hybrid form
of community build upon face-to-face and computer-mediated communication (Etzioni & Etzioni,
1999). Our findings are coherent with Castells’s (2010) hypothesis about ‘the culture of real
virtuality’, in which he argues that the new modes and structures of social communication and
interaction have included so many expressions of culture and personal experiences that the virtual is
increasingly becoming an essential part of our reality.
A finding that was not touched upon by Castell, but by various other scholars (e.g. (Dominick, 1999)
(Ellison et al., 2006) (Valkenburg et al., 2006) (Walther, 2007) (Acar, 2008)) is the problematic tension
that occurs between real identity and virtual identity. We elaborate on how social networks offer the
possibility for advanced self-presentation, impression management and identity creation that will be
discussed further on in this chapter, resulting in virtual identities that are false - or at least
incomplete -reflections of the actual personality.
In this chapter we have discussed the tense relationship between the global and the local, that is
indicated by cosmopolitan attitudes and local appreciation and reinvention of global symbols, ideas
and goods. Additionally, we found a tension between virtual and real social lives; selective selfpresentations, superficiality, and the commodification of identities altogether blur the line between
the real and the fake.
66
Roos & Wolters 2014
6.3 D ISCOURSE
OF
T ENSIONS
AROUND
S OCIAL C OMPARISON
C ONTEMPORARY C ONSUMER S OCIETY
AN D ITS
IN
E FFECTS
Chapter 5.3 has shown the tension that we have found in relation to social and anti-social aspect of
SNS. In this chapter we elaborate further on these findings as well as how our findings contribute or
confirm the current literature.
6.3.1 T H E D I S CO U R S E
OF
S O CI A L C O M P A RI SO N
AN D
S O LI P SI S M
The differences between real and virtual environments have a certain impact on social comparison
processes. From a wider perspective, we have seen that SNS are typically subject to social as well as
non-social uses. We found that that digitalization processes have especially dramatic effects on social
processes in at least three ways: the amount of social information that is being communicated, the
nature of this social information, and the way this information is being communicated.
The Amount of Social Information
We found that reference frames are constantly being expanded through SNS. It appears that
practically no one can be fully excluded from one’s reference frame, as new information is, as
suggested before (Veblen, 1899) (Bourdieu, 1984) (Mussweiler, 2009), always reflected upon one’s
own situation. Of course, the nature of the relationship does determine the degree of influence, but
most contacts can provide information on ‘what is possible’ in terms of consumer goods and
experiences. This finding is coherent with that of Chou and Edge (2012), who found that social media
has further increased our possible frame of reference to mirror our consumption behaviour. When it
comes to ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ this relative consumption becomes an important topic as this
phenomenon is all about our position relative to others, in the traditional sense of the expression:
the direct neighbours. Galbraith (1958) stresses the importance of relative consumption in explaining
increases and patterns in consumption. He also stresses the role of emulation in making consumers
keep up with, or get ahead of the consumption of others (Pressman, 2011). However, we found that
in contemporary digitalized society, goods do not play the same role they played when Whyte (1954)
proposed his theory on clustered consumption, since in contemporary society, lifestyles, that include
but are not limited to the consumption of goods, are especially important in social comparison
processes.
The expansion of reference frames is also closely related to what we found in regards to attitudes
towards all that is related to the global. Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006) found that people living in
the locally constrained periphery are especially globally oriented since their aspired lifestyle is not
present in their near environment. We find that for most of our participants, who come from locally
constrained peripheries, the global seems slightly more appealing than those who do not.
67
Roos & Wolters 2014
Digitalization has made a dramatic impact on reference frames; they have become multi-modal and
the amount of social information seems overwhelming. Giddens (1991) stated over twenty years ago
that identity projects were becoming reflexive processes in which the self is negotiated in terms of
many optional lifestyle choices. Schwartz (2004) beautifully argues that plurality of choices makes us
in fact unhappy. The materialization of lifestyles that are communicated globally and embraced in
local markets, make available many options to consider. As seen in the literature review, the global
economy of culture can be analysed by the use of the five landscapes, as metaphor used by
Appadurai (1986). The flow of people, technology, finance and capital, mediated images and lastly
the flow of ideas and ideologies increase the supply of symbols that become available in more and
more places (Appadurai, 1986) (Waters, 1995). As we have seen earlier, these flow help create and
re-create consumer culture and are a more or less dialectical process between the global and the
localities it exists of (Giddens, 1991). In our study it has become apparent that numerous lifestyles
and symbolic materials are being communicated towards individuals in SNS, creating a ‘choice
overload’. The overload of choices as described by Ariely (2009) forces individuals into a hedonic
treadmill.
The Nature of Social Information
We argue that, in order to deal with this choice overload, society needs to adapt in a way that to
make sense of this plurality of symbols, our participants seem to aspire not goods, but complete
lifestyles. For instance, we found that there is an increased sense of lifestyle choices and more
developed sense of what fits a certain lifestyle. Additionally, we found that identity projects are
rather individual endeavours; subcultures are still relevant, but since individuals are presented new
subcultures almost on a daily basis, we note that most of our participants were afraid to adopt a
certain style in more strict ways. This is in line with the work of Bauman (2001) and one could argue
that this indicates a hybridization of lifestyles (if many are adopted, yet not fully), or what Firat
(1997) calls the ’Globalization of Fragmentation’. However, we want to stress that, throughout the
data, we find individualistic attempts to create distinction in the form of giving new, local meanings
to attitudes towards life, experiences and the use of goods rather than goods in particular, so in fact
there is cultural reinvention that reinforces the plurality of the globally available lifestyle options. We
believe that the work of Adams (1998) is an important contribution here; SNS may be the only tools
that fit the rapid flows of culture and symbols, as they enable us to both acquire and send out
cultural messages high speed and to many of our connections. Recently, Manago et al. (2012)
predicted that if network size would keep growing, the amount of superficial relations would
increase, and that this would lead to lower levels of satisfactory recognition that would need larger
amounts of self-expression in order to receive a satisfactory emotional fulfilment. We agree that this
68
Roos & Wolters 2014
is true for our participants, for instance, Elizabeth posts multiple times a day and indicates to closely
watch the amount of likes she receives. We suspect that this may lead to an important
misconception or illusion in some cases: that we will always be heard, which in turn, could lead to
addictive use of SNS.
However, as discussed earlier, there is a certain difference, at least on a perceptual level, of virtual
and real identities. We noted the importance of being able to select, edit, modify and polish social
information about oneself in SNS. Some authors have linked this to increased upward comparison
and sometimes lower levels of social self-esteem (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007) (Muise et al., 2009), and
we argue that there is general agreement of that ‘they have better lives than me’ as also has been
touched upon by (Chou & Edge, 2012). However, this is highly dependent on both the life situation
and life phase as well as on personality. Salimkhan et al. also wrote an account on the construction of
the virtual self on MySpace, and found that visualization is used to create a visual narrative of the
social self, and that multimedia imagery ‘’becomes integrated in the sense of self as the line between
advertisement and self-promotion disappears.’’(2010, p.1). Interestingly, we found that this is
relevant for the connection between the real self and the virtual self as some experiences become
‘only real when shared’. For instance, Cecilia (24) feels a need to post a picture on Facebook when
she is having ice-cream with her family, because otherwise it feels like it did not happen. Here, it
seems like Cecilia almost becomes her digital identity, as for her the only real experiences are those
that are put online.
The Strategic Intent
Apart from the amount of information that is communicated and the nature of this information, we
also found that there is a significantly present strategic intent when it comes to how and when things
are being communicated. We find that the virtual self is increasingly seen as a product that has to be
marketed in order to get personal recognition and life satisfaction. This finding is coherent with the
work of Goffman (1990) who argues that people are consciously and unconsciously interested in
controlling the impressions they convey. Mehdizadeh (2010) found important correlations between
profile photos and profile details and levels of self-efficacy, and our findings confirm the relation
Mehdizadeh draws between self-efficacy and SNS activity. Impression management becomes a
constant struggle, and some scholars (e.g. (Petkova, 2006) have noted that it is increasingly easy to
switch between different identity projects, a notion that is coherent with this study. Therefore,
people enter “ever-present worry of needing to perform oneself appropriately” (Clark, 2005, p. 217).
We found significant evidence for a social multiplier effect in SNS. According to our empirical data
analysis, subjective well-being is pressured by SNS and the desire to ‘Keep up with the Joneses’ is
more severe than ever.
69
Roos & Wolters 2014
Earlier on we noted the important effects that reference frame expansion has on social comparison
processes. It is suggested in the literature that one of the main reasons to include someone in an
online network is to maintain offline relationships (Manago et al. (2012). But we found, rather
shockingly, that people are more seen as products, what we call the commercialization of identity,
and that they are used for ego-centred (and cosmopolitan) identity projects. In this commodification
of friendship process, we see another type of neighbour arise, which we call the ‘glocal neighbour’.
This glocal neighbour has a global character in the sense that he or she was met in an unfamiliar
setting (abroad), and that he/she is typically far away. Additionally it has a local character, in the
sense that he/she is used to the localities of his/her country. Preferably, this neighbour is willing to
take ‘friends’ that are unfamiliar to the place to what we relate to Tonnies’ (1967), backstage and let
them experience the locality from an insider’s perspective. These ties are typified by their usefulness:
they are often referred to as ‘random person’ (Susanne, 24 and Aleksandra, 24), and their network
inclusion is primarily based on the exchange of services, such as offering a couch to sleep on. Then,
there is a mutual willingness to host these contacts and take them backstage. This way, both parties
receive an increased sense of cosmopolitanism, which is then advertised on SNS, and simultaneously
can be used to show that both individuals have exciting lives.
Returning to the utilitarian character of relationships, this glocal neighbour is sometimes useless for
daily interaction due to e.g. a language barrier. The friendship is not being sustained, and the contact
becomes an empty relationship. We believe these relations have two main use values: to be able to
contact a ‘familiar foreigner’ (and consciously overcome the language barrier) in case one needs
access to a locality or a place to stay. Secondly, they are used to indicate cosmopolitan capital and
the possession of an extensive network to indicate social capital.
The Neighbour and Social Comparison
Relating back to the traditional perception of ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’, in the sense of
neighbourhood influence, we found that physical neighbours are still present in the consumption
reference frame of our participants, but that their influence and interaction has shifted towards the
virtual realm. Both main uses of the online neighbourhood communities as identified in the literature
review (Unger and Wandersman 1985) – social support and exchanges – have social and non-social
(ego-centric) aspects in it and we find support for this conclusion.
The neighbour function is social in the sense that most of the social support or help is quickly
requested and given, because there is mutual feeling of community among ‘less affluent’ students.
Satisfying one’s individual emotional needs is perceived to possible without returning any emotional
affection. We argue that this stems from the commercialization of identity as is subject to critique to
70
Roos & Wolters 2014
scholars such as Bauman (2013): the mixing of social rules between the real and the virtual social
interactions that become blurred because the real and virtual become blurred. Castells (2001) argued
that the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family results in networked individualism, and our
empirical findings support individualistic behaviour as well as solipsistic ideas.
The exchange function on the other hand, is social in the sense that these exchanges enhance social
comparison processes and the marketization and giving of products. The standardized dwellings
accommodate effortless social comparison and the online community page creates higher awareness
of how others style their rooms. The exchange function is non-social in the sense that exchanges are
usually made for utilitarian purposes only and that connections are only made when both parties
benefit from it in terms of selling and buying goods.
Social comparison processes therefore seem to be subject to at least two trends that determine both
the magnitude and the effect of the social multiplier. On the one hand, social comparison processes
are found to have taken a leap in recent years, fuelled by SNS and marketing, accruing the pressure
to keep up with consumer goods, experiences and lifestyles. However, as people engage in virtual
social interaction, they seem to have the weapons to fight with. Additionally, virtual communities
may offer a sense of belonging, even though belongingness to virtual communities appears to give
much weaker satisfaction than belonging to real groups that are based upon offline interaction. On
the other hand, we see an increased sense of individualism, solipsism and inflated selves that also
reflects clearly in the utilitarian and ego-centric uses of platforms that are supposed to be ‘social’.
There is a constant pressure for the created identity to be marketed and recognized as a member of
the virtual society, creating a strong focus on those contacts, experiences, actions and purchases that
enhance the social status of the ‘second self’, the virtual self-created product.
Overall, the social multiplier still has a tremendous effect on consumers, exposing them to numerous
ideal neighbours to keep up with. In the traditional sense, consumer goods played a major role,
whereas the contemporary working of the social multiplier has the following traits, as identified in
this project:
1. SNS enable people to show off possessions, experiences, etc. that were invisible before.
2. SNS enable people to show off possessions, experiences, etc. to a worldwide audience, an
increase from a limited audience to a mega-audience.
3. SNS have a much stronger effect on consumer behaviour and behaviour in general, because
of the plurality and magnitude of impulses.
4. SNS enable proximate neighbours to run social comparison processes without face-to-face
contact.
71
Roos & Wolters 2014
We found that social comparison processes in SNS bring out feelings of envy and unhappiness, but
these differ between persons. We also found that a reversed impression management occurs among
some individuals, showing their ‘dark’ side on SNS, and pretending to be happy in real life, for
example at school. This is exceptional, as for the vast majority this seems to be reversed, real life
includes ups and downs, advantages and disadvantages, whereas the virtual includes positive
information only. This could be explained by the fact that posting personal thoughts on Facebook
may be an easier way to express feelings than in real-life situations. An interesting approach to this,
significantly small percentage of Facebook users, is taken by Forest and Wood (2012) who argue that
individuals who struggle to connect to people (often with low self-esteem) have difficulties
establishing and maintaining intimate relations and that self-disclosure is an important tool for this.
Accordingly, they argue that contrary the expectations that these people would benefit from SNS as
safe places of self-disclosure, these disclosures have a reverse effect on their well-being that may pull
them into a negative spiral of returning back to SNS for social support for these negative results of
self-disclosure.
6.3.2 T H E D I S CO U R S E
OF
A D AP T A BI LI T Y
AN D
A N XI E T Y
One of our main findings was the adaptability of the digital consumer culture to the digitalized world.
This has shown among others trough how relatively quickly, technology has been embedded in our
culture. The social networks we see as a form of homogenized culture that is identified by Belk and
Ger (1996). As Firat and Venkatesh (1993) state, the homogenization is characterised by the
commonalities between nations. We have seen in our multinational focus group that SNS are used in
exactly the same way and that homogenization also has played its part in how many people only post
in English (whereas they are of a different nationality). This homogenized behaviour contradicts a
study by Ji et al. (2010), that have discovered differences in SNS usage of three nations and
difference for the reasons to use SNS. Based on our study, we expect that SNS usage will only
increase homogenization and the will to adapt to or keep up with different cultures. This
standardisation of SNS use is a good example as stated by Horkheimer and Adorno (1996) as the
‘culture industry’. Even though SNS use becomes more homogenised, we also see, as stated in the
previous chapter, how cultures reinvent by for example the Neknominations.
Further, influence off virtualization processes on youth culture has also been one of our main
findings. As stated we have reason to believe that SNS and its comparing processes have a direct
influence on adolescents and children. Firstly,
we have identified that kids grow up quicker.
Secondly, by having so many people to conform to, they feel the need to conform at a younger age.
It has been identified that media in general influences the process of children growing up (e.g. (Von
Feilitzen & Bught, 2001)), yet there has been only little academic research on how social media in
72
Roos & Wolters 2014
particular influences this. We have recognized that SNS have become an integral part to a teenagers
life. Teens do most of the communication and interactions these days behind the screen, not in
person. In relation to our study this means that they do not see one person, or one group with whom
they hang out at the mall, but they scroll through their newsfeed in which they only see how great
everyone seems. As stated in the literature review there is a significant expansion of reference
frame (Chou & Edge, 2012) (Castells, 2010) (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2006) and more importantly as
we have identified, this reference frame only exists of idealized images. The need to adapt to all this
idealized images is stated. This significantly influences the development of identities of teens as
stated in an online article by the Child Mind Institute (Ehmke, 2013). We argue with this institute and
elaborate on their findings in regard to social comparison of identities. People compare themselves
with this idealized images and if they cannot portray an equally good or better image of themselves,
they fail to keep up and will experience anxiety. Furthermore, we contribute that this does not only
involve teens and adolescents that still are in the process of developing their identity. We found that
the adults in our focus groups also experience group pressure, the pressure to conform, and anxiety
in this sense.
As stated in the literature, people rather compare with a reference frame favourable to their
situation to reduce feelings of inferiority (Guven & Sorensen, 2012). However, due to all the idealized
identities on SNS it is almost impossible to compare downward. And as the need to compare to
others is so deeply embedded in our consumer culture (Veblen, 1899) (Bourdieu, 1984) (Mussweiler,
2009), many comparisons are upward, hence increasing our feelings of inferiority.
This being said, the peer pressure to adapt and being just as amazing as the rest is found to be
present in our teen (16-17 year old focus group) as well as in our older groups. As we have touched
upon in the literature review stated digitalization is linked to several forms of anxiety (Valkenburg &
Peter, 2007) (Kim et al., 2009) (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011), and our study has confirmed that this failing
to adapt or constantly striving to adapt increases social anxiety.
A study by Valkenburg et al. (2006) focusses on how SNS indirectly influence social self-esteem and
well-being. They point out that “peer acceptance and interpersonal feedback on the self, both
important features of friend network sites, are vital predictors of social self-esteem and well-being in
adolescence.” We have found the same in our study, for example Elisabeth (26) that states when she
receives a lot of ‘likes’ she knows her posted picture is nice. This adds to what Valkenburt et al.
(2006) say in a way that the principle is not only applicable to adolescents but also to adults.
Furthermore, we found that the main factor that shows ‘peer acceptance and feedback’ are the
amount of ‘likes’, ‘comments’, ‘retweets’ etc. that one gets. It can function as some kind of new
73
Roos & Wolters 2014
status symbol like a luxury good used to be. We argue that ‘likes’ become a ‘Veblen good’, carrying
out meaning of social status and are desired by others. Through the ‘likes’ people now are actually
getting a polling how much others like them and their appearance. These ‘likes’ now show ones
social capital, which can enhance one’s social mobility. ‘Likes’ as a social capital status symbol
contributes to what has been discussed in the literature review, authors stating an increase in social
capital trough: the grander size of one’s network (Valenzuela et al., 2009, p.877), the increase of
social interaction and the adaptation of a cosmopolitan lifestyle (Thompson & Tambyah, 1999).
We have found the rat race for likes to be a reason that people are working hard and spend hours to
create their own idealized image. However, this only creates more pressure, as when they scroll
through their newsfeeds they see how perfect, grandiose, and impressing everyone else’s life is.
As discussed in our literature review, some scholars argue for the negative relationship between selfselected identities and well-being (Valkenburg et al., 2006) (Acar, 2008). In our research this has
become apparent too, illustrated above. Additionally, we have identified another concern. Creating
of identities does not only stop by one platform. Our participants feel the need to be visible on
several platforms, which all carry out their own message. As all identities get enhanced to keep up
and compete on these social and professional platforms, one ends up with different identities that
one wants to proliferate by SNS consumption. As argued by (Miles et al., 1998) consumption gives
people a feeling to fit in whilst simultaneously giving them some semblance of individuality.
However, in the light of our data, what happens when one has to many identities to keep up with? In
our study it became apparent that this causes stress, confusion, and overall anxiety as people start
consolidating who they are. This more often than not can create in essence a difference between
who you appear to be and who you think you are. This is similar to what is called the imposter
syndrome (Ehmke, 2013), which occurs when people cannot internalize with the person that they
show to be on the outside (e.g. in our case: on SNS). One of the reasons that they cannot internalize,
is that they feel like a fraud (Caltech, 2014). This is understandable in the light of our study, as one
has to keep up (semi-true) appearances in all the different networks one engages in.
As discussed in chapter 6.2.2, there might be a difference in the way people adapt between
generations. We have found that digital natives do not embrace SNS but the SNS are actually forced
upon them, this is in contrast to what Prensky (2011) argues. To keep up, both the digital natives and
immigrants respond with an adaptation strategy as discussed above, by falsifying information and
creating embellished identities. Another strategy is to be passive and resistant. Many of the
participants are increasingly aware of how superficial and carefully constructed newsfeed updates
are. Additionally, they become aware how this influences their well-being negatively as well as their
74
Roos & Wolters 2014
behaviour. There is a resistance to SNS in the sense that participants are thinking of deleting their
profiles or a desire to be less active on SNS.
We have found that SNS change the amount, quality and communication of social information that is
used for comparison and self-evaluation in which the option to create ideal selves proves to be
problematic. We have reflected our findings upon the literature and found some contradictions, some
confirmations and some extensions of existing theories or findings. However, it remains evident
throughout the entire discussion that social structures, interactions, etcetera are subject to
incomplete literature and limited understanding because of their emergent nature.
7. K EEPING UP IN C ONTEMPORARY C ONSUMER S OCIETY
The purpose of this study was to shed light upon the complex social comparison processes of today
by looking at the working and the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society.
The general theoretical literature on this subject and specifically in the context of social uses of
internet is inconclusive on several vital questions within the social anxiety discourse. Therefore, we
sought to answer three questions:
1.
What are the practical considerations for whether or not to consume Social
Networking Sites?
2.
What is the current setting of social comparison that evolves from globalization and
virtualization processes?
3.
What are the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society?
By linking these investigations together, we sought to develop a thorough understanding of
intensified social comparison efforts in the complex social system of today. We did this, by taking a
limit attitude towards marketing (Tadajewski and Brownlie, 2008). Although recognizing the benefits
and advancements that we reap in today’s society, we argue with Richins (1995) that through the
promotion of goods and services, marketing often stimulates envy and consumer discontent.
7.1 E MPIRICAL
FINDINGS .
To digest the large amount of rich data collect through four focus groups and complementing
research methods, the main empirical findings were divided into three chapters of which each
answers one of the research questions. Chapter 5.1 relates to question 1, chapter 5.2 relates to
question 2, and chapter 5.3 relates to question 3. We synthesize the empirical findings, in order to
answer these questions which we will discuss below.
75
Roos & Wolters 2014
What are the practical considerations for whether or not to consume Social Networking Sites?
There appears to be a set of tensions that are the result of different considerations that are
paradoxical:
 Opportunities and incentives to consume SNS. Network expansion for primarily selfish
reasons, displaying conspicuousness, exerting control functions and practical usage. To
reduce the fear of missing out on what others are doing, to satisfy the need attention and
compassion, to market one’s identity and indicate cosmopolitan values, and to chat with
friends.
 Reasons not to consume SNS, concerns and barriers. These include: privacy concerns when
people are looking over the hypothetical fence, the social control that is present on SNS, and
being exposed to an information overload. Another reason not to use SNS is the fear of
becoming too dependent on it.
What is the current setting of social comparison that evolves from globalization and
virtualization processes?
Here, it appears that globalization and virtualization processes both have considerable effects on the
understanding of two paradoxes that are highly relevant to social comparison processes:
 Globalization: the tension between the global and the local. We find that the relationship
between the global and the local is tense, and that the global is increasingly present in the
lives of people; they are adopting a cosmopolitan attitude. The local stills remains influential
and cosmopolitan efforts are not always successful, for which the local is often blamed. We
find that the fast-paced flow of cultural symbols accommodates cultural enrichment and
reinvention. Perceptions of closeness and remoteness have significantly changed through
digitalization and globalization, changing the fundaments of social constructions such as the
neighbourhood.
 Virtualization: the tension between the virtual and the real: Digitalization processes have
changed the organization of social life, but the social system re-creates itself. Virtual
friendship makes unlimited choice possible; resulting in the ‘consumption of friendships’, and
the increased commodification of identity. Virtual identities enable selective selfrepresentations, conceivably making social comparison a different game. A sceptical attitude
towards the ‘realness’ of social interactions on SNS is clearly present; however, many social
interactions can only be complete when they include the virtual component. The limited
ability to classify network members and the ease of ‘adding friends’ results in moral
struggles. Similar to how globalization influences the local, the virtual seems to increasingly
enter what is perceived as real.
76
Roos & Wolters 2014
What are the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary consumer society?
The answers of the first two questions indicate that the working of the social multiplier is subject to
changes in contemporary consumer society. We found that social comparison expands and
therefore, we become more and more ego-centred. Along with this, we found that there is a thin line
between adaptability and social anxiety.
 Social comparison and solipsism: SNS enable people to show off possessions, lifestyles and
experiences that were invisible before, to a worldwide audience, more frequently and more
strategically. This creates severe social competition, in which SNS provide the tools to keep
up with others through selective self-presentation and the creation of artificial and ‘ideal’
personalities. Every friend that is added to a virtual network means another ideal identity to
keep up with and down-ward comparisons are made on a daily basis, increasing feelings of
inferiority. Gathering from the overload of attractive opportunities that is present on SNS,
people try to keep up and enter a hedonic treadmill.
 Adaptability and anxiety: This treadmill naturally creates anxiety. Social evolution processes
create increasingly skilled self-marketers and impression managers. Strategic branding
excels, however, conflicting identities on different platforms make it increasingly complex
and require increased cognitive efforts. Disorientation, classification problems, and fear of
missing out occur. In other words, ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ seems impossible for more
and more people.
7.2 T HEORETICAL I MPLICATIONS .
The theoretical body on the issues described is infantile when it comes to contemporary application.
We shed light upon the complex social comparison processes of today by looking at the working and
the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary society. We contribute to the literature on
contemporary social systems and the influences of forces like globalization and virtualization by
highlighting their effects in terms of tensions. We believe that there is not a singular outcome to
these forces, but they rather have a tense working on social structures and people are actively trying
to make sense of their situation.
Whyte’s (1954) account on the social multiplier does not hold truth in the sense that physical
neighbourhoods play an important role in social comparison processes. However, his conclusions
hold truth when it comes to the fundamental notion of social comparison and self-evaluation within
reference frames. We have developed the neighbour as a concept that transcends the locality and
physical state, accounting for the drastic changes in reference frames of nowadays. We identified
77
Roos & Wolters 2014
several kinds of neighbourhood influences that are exerted by different network ties in relation to
SNS.
Social practice theories, such as those developed by Veblen (1899), Bourdieu (1984), Festinger (1954)
and Douglas and Isherwood (1979) have appeared to not only be relevant when it comes to studying
distinction and belonging on SNS, but also to be vital in understanding these practices, as suggested
by Bennett and Maton (2010).
This study found that, like media, identities are now being ‘consumed’: commoditised, marketed, and
acquired for utilitarian traits; a notion that has also been developed by Bauman (2013). People
acquire contacts for reasons that go far beyond affection. This, and other structural changes in social
networks such as the crumbling of traditional social structures, has also been addressed in the work
of Castells (2010), which contrary to our study, does not explicitly link them to social anxiety. Other
authors however, have linked society’s immaturity in adapting to this new and increasingly digital
social world to loneliness, addiction and depression (e.g. (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007) (Kim et al.,
2009) (Muise et al., 2009) (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011)).
Selective self-representations have lately been subject to scholarly attention, but the effects are
explained differently (Ellison et al., 2006) (Walther, 2007) (Muise et al., 2009) (Haferkamp & Krämer,
2011) (Chou & Edge, 2012). For example, Ellison et al. (2006) also find that there is a tension between
creating an ‘ideal self’ and being afraid of being superficial. However, their study overlooks the
overall effect of self-evaluation when seeing other profiles. Arguably, SNS did not become such a
significant part of lived reality in 2006 yet, that it could influence emotional well-being significantly.
Chou and Edge (2012), more recently linked selective self-presentations to feelings of inferiority and
the desire to ‘keep up’, however they used a quantitative approach and could therefore not account
for personal experiences in the way this study does.
Keller (1968), Wellman, (1979) and Fischer (1982) predicted the effects of urbanization and
globalization on traditional social structures. This study proved them right; however, we should note
that these traditional structures still fulfil a role in the construction of identity and the way in which
people make sense of the people and the world around them.
Overall, most of the literatures concerning the wide array of topics that connect to this paper are
subject to quantitative and American studies. We sought to complement this body of literature by
linking key aspects of the current social order to widely recognized sociological and consumer culture
theory a novel way. This qualitative endeavour accounts for individual experiences and perceptions
in order to create understanding of this complex phenomenon.
78
Roos & Wolters 2014
7.3 I MPLICATIONS
FOR
M ANAGERS
AND
P OLICY - MAKERS .
Our findings indicate that consumers are not only willing, but in desperate need for new symbols to
be put to use in the social competition. This readiness and interest in new tools for identity building,
such as novel brands or fashion, will increasingly crumble down brand loyalty. Therefore, not only
consumers need novel symbols and cultural reinvention to function, marketers need the same.
7.4 C ONCLUSION
Our main research question was as follows: ‘How do virtualization and globalization processes in
contemporary consumer society alter the working of the social multiplier?’ The purpose of answering
this question was to shed light upon the complex social comparison processes of today by looking at
the working and the effects of the social multiplier in contemporary society.
We believe that complex social processes should be approached creatively and by combining the
case of traditional neighbourhood influences, traditional and contemporary literature, qualitative
empirical data, as well as our own experiences as users of SNS, we have developed a comprehensive
argument on the topic of study.
We should note here that efforts to ‘Keep up with the Joneses’, or the ‘Fear of Missing out’ can have
a positive working as it widens the scope of interest, drives people towards leading more exciting
lives and it enhances the idea of using our talents to the fullest. However, our study indicated a need
to raise awareness and prevent the foreclosure of the ‘dark side’ of it.
Based on our empirical findings, we can conclude that, there is an increased freedom of choice in
almost every aspect of identity. Additionally, we are exposed to many more options to choose from,
willingly or unwillingly. We find proof both the consumption and production of new social structures
through SNS: traditional social structures no longer structure our lives like before, and acceptance of
individual authority creates strong solipsistic feelings. We are no longer bound to inherited social
status and identity, and the quest for the one’s identity starts early on, not only embedding freedom
of choice deeply into toddlers’ minds, but also making them better at choosing. Technological
developments, which include SNS, expose us to (entrepreneurial) success stories from around the
world, creating the belief that anything is possible. In sum, the social multiplier is running overspeed
and ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ has become ‘Keeping up with the World’, which explains the social
anxiety that was found in this study. But, ironically, withdrawing ourselves from SNS would - for
some people - mean unplugging from life: we are caught in the Net.
79
Roos & Wolters 2014
7.5 L IMITATIONS
AN D
S UGGESTIONS
FOR
F URTHER R ESEARCH
In our methodology chapter we have stated our concrete limitations for this study. This research is
mainly restrained by time and scope. We expect that the social comparison processes on SNS will
further develop over time. We would therefore, like to encourage further research on this topic in
order to create an even deeper understanding. This research project is conducted in a European
setting and should be further tested on populations outside of Europe, as well as in less-affluent
countries. Also, we identify a need for longitudinal research designs, especially among children, in
order to study adaptation efforts. We raise the question that is also raised by our participants: ‘’What
is virtual now, will that be real for next generations?’’ The existing body of literature on the
‘generational divide’ and ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) that is especially focussed on educational
developments, could therefore be of good use among a wider audience of sociologists. Some
psychological issues and adaptation problems have been discussed by social scientists (Bessiere et
al., 2008) (Burke et al., 2010), but as these problems are especially emergent in recent years, there is
a need for qualitative endeavours that further investigate how different generations cope with
intensified social competition through SNS. Additionally, we believe that cosmopolitanism research
could excel by looking beyond cultural perceptions, consumption practice and also focussing on the
communicational aspects of its manifestations, especially in virtual environments.
80
Roos & Wolters 2014
B IBLIOGRAPHY
Acar, A., 2008. Antecedents and Consequences of Online Social Networking Behavior: The Case of
Facebook. Journal of Website Promotion, 3, pp.62-83.
Alevesson, M., 2003. Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics, and Localists: A Reflexive Approach to
Interviews in Organizational Research. The Academy of Management Review, 8(1), pp.13-33.
Am, J., 1986. The Relationship of Histrionic Personality Disorder to Antisocial Personality and
Somatization Disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 143(6), pp.718-22.
Anonymous, 2013. Social Anxiety Support. [Online] Available at:
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f26/i-am-afraid-of-seeing-my-neighbors-410921/
[Accessed 21 May 2014].
Appadurai, A., 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In Appardurai, A. The Social
Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Appadurai, A., 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Theory Culture
Society, 7(2), pp.295-310.
Ariely, D., 2009. Predictably Irrational. New York: Harper-Collins.
Assael, H., 1992. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Boston, Massachusetts: Kent Publishing
Co..
Auden, W.H., 1948. The Age of Anxiety. London: Faber & Faber.
Bagozzi, R.P. & Dholakia, U.M., 2002. Intentional Social Actions in Virtual Communities. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 16(2), pp.2-21.
Baudrilliard, J., 1998. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bauman, Z., 2001. The Individualized Society. 1st ed. Polity.
Bauman, Z., 2013. Consuming Life. John Wiley & Sons.
Baumeister, M. & Leary, R., 1995. The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a
Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), pp.497-529.
Belk, R.W., 1998. Been There, Done That, Bought the Souvenirs: Of Journeys and Boundary Crossing.
In S. Brown & D. Turley, eds. Consumer Research: Postcards from the Edge. New York:
Routledge. pp.22-45.
Belk, R.W. & Ger, G., 1996. I'd like to buy the World a Coke. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(3),
pp.271-304.
Bell, W. & Boat, M.D., 1957. Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Social Relations. American Journal of
Sociology, 62, pp.391-98.
Bennett, S., 2012. Digital Natives. In Z. Yan, ed. Encyclopedia of Cyber Behaviour. 1st ed. United
States: IGI Global. pp.212-19.
81
Roos & Wolters 2014
Bennett, S. & Maton, K., 2010. Beyond the 'Digital Natives' debate: Towards a More Nuanced
Understanding of Students' Technology Experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
26(5), pp.321-31.
Bessiere, K., Kiesler, S., Kraut, R. & Boneva, B., 2008. Effects of Internet Use and Social Resources on
Changes in Depression. Information, Communication and Society, 11, pp.47-70.
Bindley, K., 2013. Sleep Texting Is On The Rise, Experts Suggest. [Online] Available at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/sleep-texting-on-the-rise_n_2677739.html
[Accessed 27 February 2014].
Bourdieu, P., 1984[1979]. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge
& Kagan Paul.
Bourne, F., 1957. Group Influence in Marketing and Public Relations. In R. Likert & S.P. Hayes, eds.
Some Application of Behavorial Research. Paris: Unesco.
Bowers, K.S., Regher, G., Balthazard, C. & Parker, K., 1990. Intiuation in the context of discovery.
Cognitive Psychology, 22, pp.72-110.
Boyd, D., 2004. Friendster and Publicly Articulated Social Networking. In Conference on Human
Factors and Computing Systems. Vienna, Austria , 2004. CHI.
Boyd, D.M. & Ellison, N.B., 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition,History and Scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).
Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods. 3rd ed. USA: Oxford University Press.
Burke, M., Marlow, C. & Lento, T., 2010. Social Network Activity and Social Well-Being. In
Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems., 2010.
Burnkrant, R.E. & Cousineau, A., 1975. Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(December), pp.206-15.
Burns, A.C. & Bush, R.F., 2010. Marketing Research. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson.
Caltech, 2014. Caltech Counseling Center. [Online] Available at:
https://counseling.caltech.edu/general/InfoandResources/Impostor [Accessed 21 May 2014].
Campbell, K.E. & Lee, B.A., 1992. Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration, Need, or
Time?. Social Forces, 70, pp.1077-100.
Cannon, H.M. & Yaprak, A., 2002. Will the Real-World Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of
Cosmopolitan Consumer Behaviour. Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), pp.30-52.
Castells, M., 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Castells, M., 2010. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume 1: The Rise of the
Network Society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
82
Roos & Wolters 2014
Chen, H.T. & Yonghwan, K., 2013. Problametic Use of Social Networking Sites: The Interactive
Relationship between Gratifications Sought and Privacy Concerns. Cyberpsychology, 16(11),
pp.806-12.
Chossudovsky, M., 2003. The globalization of poverty and the new world order. Shanty Bay, Ontario:
Global Outlook.
Chou, H. & Edge, N., 2012. ‘‘They Are Happier and Having Better Lives than I Am’’: The Impact of
Using Facebook on Perceptions of Others’ Lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15(2), pp.117-21.
Christopherson, S., Garretsen, H. & Martin, R., 2008. The World is not Flat: putting Globalization in its
Place. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1, pp.343-49.
Clark, L.S., 2005. The Constant Contact Generation. Exploring Teen Friendship Networks Online. In
S.R. Mazzarella, ed. Girl Wide Web. Girls, the Internet and the Negotiation of Identity. New York:
Peter Lang Publishing. pp.203-21.
Corrigan, P., 1997. The Sociology of Consumption. Sage Publications.
Curtis, A., 2013. The Brief History of Social Media. [Online] Available at:
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/NewMedia/SocialMedia/SocialMediaHistory.html
[Accessed 12 May 2014].
Dede, C., 2005. Planning for Neo-Millennial Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Faculty
and Technology. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger, eds. Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO:
Educause. pp.1-22 (Chapter 15).
Dijk, J.V., 2006. The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Sage.
Dominick, J., 1999. Who Do You Think You Are? Personal Home Pages and Self-presentation on the
World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, pp.646-58.
Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B., 1979. The World of Goods. Towards an Antropology of Consumption.
London: Allen Lane.
Dutt, A.K., 2001. Crossing the Mainstream: Ethical and Methodological Issues in Economics. In A.K.
Dutt & K. Jameson, eds. Consumption, Happiness and Consumption. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press. pp.133-69.
Dutt, A.K., 2008. The Dependence Effect, Consumption and Happiness: Galbraith Revisited. Review of
Political Economy, 20(4), pp.527-50.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Jackson, P., 2012. Management Research. 4th ed. London: SAGE.
Effrat, M.D., 1973. Approaches to Community: Conflicts and Complimentaries. Sociological Enquiry,
43(3), pp.1-32.
Ehmke, R., 2013. Teens and Social Media. [Online] Child Mind Institute Available at:
http://www.childmind.org/en/posts/articles/2013-11-26-self-esteem-and-anxiety-digital-age
[Accessed 20 May 2014].
83
Roos & Wolters 2014
Ekberg, E. & Lange, E., 2014. Business History and Economic Globalization. Business History, 56(1),
pp.101-15.
Ekström, K.M., 2010. Families and Reference Groups. In K.M. Ekström, ed. Consumer Behaviour; A
Nordic Perspective. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. p.609.
Elliott, R. & Jankel-Elliott, P., 2003. Using Ethnography in Strategic Consumer Research, Qualitative
Market Research. An International Journal, 6(4), pp.215-23.
Ellison, N., Heino, R. & Gibbs, J., 2006. Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in
the Online Dating Environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), pp.41541.
Etzioni, A. & Etzioni, O., 1999. Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communities, A Comparative
Analysis. The Information Society, 15, pp.241-48.
Feng, Y. & Xie, W., 2014. Teen's Concern for Privacy when using Social Networks: An Analysis of
Socialization Agents and Relationships with Privacy-Protecting Behaviors. Computers in Human
Behavior, 33, pp.153-62.
Fern, E.F., 1983. Focus Groups: A Review of Some Contradictory Evidence, Implications and
Suggestions for Future Research. NA Advances of Consumer Research, 10, pp.121-26.
Festinger, L., 1954. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations , 7, pp.117-40.
Firat, A.F. & Venkatesh, A., 1993. Postmordernity: the Age of Marketing. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 10(3), pp.227-49.
Fischer, C., 1982. To Dwell Among Friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Forest, A.L. & Wood, J.V., 2012. Individuals With Low Self-Esteem Recognize but Do Not Reap the
Benefits of Self-Disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23(3), pp.295-302.
Forest, A.L. & Wood, J.V., 2012. When Social Networking Is Not Working: Individuals With Low SelfEsteem Recognize but Do Not Reap the Benefits of Self-Disclosure on Facebook. Psychological
Science, 23(3), pp.295-302.
Fuchs, C., 2003. Some Implications of Pierre Bourdieu's Works for a Theory of Social SelfOrganization. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(4), pp.387-408.
Fuchs, C. & Gasse, S.H., 2006. The Self-Organization of Virtual Communities. Journal of New
Communications Research, 1(1), pp.29-68.
Galaskiewicz, J., 1985. Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economoy: A Study of Business
Philantrophy and Nonprofit Organizations. Orlando, FL : Academic Press.
Galbiati, R. & Zanella, G., 2012. The Tax Evasion Social Multiplier: Evidence from Italy. Journal of
Public Economics, 95(5), pp.485-94.
Galbraith, J.K., 1958. The Affluent Society. London: Hamilton.
84
Roos & Wolters 2014
Galbraith, J.K., 1975. Consumer Behaviour and the Dependence Effect. In E. Mansfield, ed. MicroEconomics Selected Readings. 2nd ed. USA: WW Norton and Company Inc. pp.3-6.
Galbraith, J.K., 2001. The Essential Galbraith. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gans, H.J., 1968. Planning and Social Life: Friendship and Neighbor Relations in Suburban
Communities. In H.J. Gans, ed. People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions. New
York: Basic Books.
Gibbons, M.L. et al., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research
in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Available at:
http://books.google.se/books?id=KS_caFqMFoMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_
summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=mode%20&f=false [accessed 14 March 2014].
Gibbs, A., 1997. Focus Groups. Social Research Update, (19), pp.130-32.
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. U.S.: University
of California Press.
Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Glaeser, E.L., Scheinkman, J.A. & Sacerdote, B.I., 2003. The Social Multiplier. Journal of The European
Economic Association , 1(2-3), pp.345-53.
Goffman, E., 1990/1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Penguin Books.
Goldman, A.E., 1962. The Group In-Depth Interview. Journal of Marketing, (26), pp.61-68.
Gross, R. & Aquisti, A., 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks. In
Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society., 2005. ACM.
Guven, C. & Sorensen, B.E., 2012. Subjective Well-Being: Keeping Up with the Perception of the
Joneses. Social Indicator Research, 109, pp.439-69.
Haferkamp, N. & Krämer, N., 2011. Social Comparison 2.0: Examining the Effects of Online Profiles on
Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking, 14(5), pp.309-14.
Hirsch, F., 1976. Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hirst, P.O. & Thompson, G.F., 1999. Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the
Possibilities of Governance. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hoffman, P., Festinger, L. & Lawrence, D., 1954. Tendencies Toward Group Comparabilty in
Competitive Bargaining. Human Relations, 7(2), pp.141-59.
Hollenbeck, C.R. & Zinkhan, G.M., 2006. Consumer activism on the Internet: The Role of Anti-Brand
Communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, pp.479-85.
Holt, D.B., 1997. Post-structuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of
Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, pp.326-50.
85
Roos & Wolters 2014
Holt, D.B., 2002. Why do Brands cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and
Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), pp.70-90.
Homans, G., 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T.W., 1996. Dialect of Enlightment. New York: Continuum.
House, J., Landis, K. & Umberson, D., 1988. Social Relationships and Health. Science, 241(July),
pp.540-45.
Howe, N. & Strauss, W., 2000. Milliennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage.
Hunter, A., 1979. The Urban Neighborhoud: Its Analytical and Social Contexts. Urban Affairs
Quarterly , 14, pp.267-88.
Ji, Y.G. et al., 2010. The Influence on Cultural Differences on the Use of Social Networking Services
and the Formation of Social Capital. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction,
26(11), pp.1100-21.
Jost, J.T. & Kruglanski, A.W., 2002. The Enstrangment of Social Constructionism and Experimental
Social Phychology: History of the Rift and Prospects for Reconciliation. Personality and Social
Pshychology Review, 6(3), pp.168-87.
Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of
Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), pp.59-68.
Karr-Wisniewski, P., Wilson, D. & Richter-Lipford, H., 2011. A New Social Order; Mechanisms for
Social Network Site Boundary Regulation. [Online] The University of North Carolina Available at:
http://hci.uncc.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/A-New-Social-Order-Mechanismsfor-Social-Network-Site-Boundary-R.pdf [Accessed 14 May 2014].
Kasarda, J.D. & Janowitz, M., 1974. Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological
Review, 30, pp.328-39.
Katral, D., 2010. Mom Goes Green. [Online] Available at:
http://www.momgoesgreen.com/mgg%E2%80%99s-energy-efficient-investment-new-windows/
[Accessed 20 May 2014].
Keller, S., 1968. The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Random House.
Kendall, G., Skrbis, Z. & Woodward, I., 2009. The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism, Globalization,
Identity and Government. 1st ed. Hampshire: Palgarve MacMillan.
Kim, J., LaRose, R. & Peng, W., 2009. Loneliness as the Cause and the Effect of Problematic Internet
Use: The Relationship between Internet Use and Psychological Well-Being. Cyberpsychology and
Behaviour, 12(4), pp.451-55.
Kitzinger, J., 1995. Introducing Focus Groups. British Medical Journal, (311), pp.299-302.
Kjeldgaard, D. & Askegaard, S., 2006. The Glocalization of Youth Culture: The Global Youth Segment
as Structures of Common Difference. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), pp.231-47.
86
Roos & Wolters 2014
Klostergarden, F., 2014. Klostergarden 2013/2014. [Online] Available at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Klostergarden2013/?fref=ts [Accessed 13 May 2014].
Kozinets, R., 2002. Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning
Man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, pp.20-37.
Kozinets, R.V., 2011. Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Kross, E. et al., 2013. Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults.
[Online] Available at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069841#s6 [Accessed
25 February 2014].
Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A., 2009. Focus Groups. 4th ed. Minnesota: SAGE Publications.
Kruglanski, A.W. & Mayseless, O., 1990. Classic and Current Social Comparison Research: Expanding
the Perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), pp.195-208.
Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D., 2011. Online Social Networking and Addiction - A Review of the
Psychological Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8,
pp.3528-52.
Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Li, H., 2004. Virtual Community Studies: A Literature Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. In
Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems. New York, 2004. Americas
Conference on Information Systems.
Lin, N., 2001. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lin, N., Dean, A. & Ensel, W., 1986. Social Support, Life Events and Depression. Orlando: Academic
Press.
Litwalk, E. & Szelenyi, I., 1969. Primary Group Structures and Their Functions: Kin, Neighbors, and
Friends. American Sociological Review, 34(4), pp.465-81.
Luttmer, E., 2005. Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 120, pp.963-1002.
Lyotard, J.F., 1984. The Postmodern Condition. Manchester: Manchester University.
Manago, A., Taylor, T. & Greenfield, P., 2012. Me and My 400 Friends: The Anatomy of College
Students’ Facebook Networks, Their Communication Patterns, and Well-Being. Development
Psychology, 48(2), pp.369-80.
Mann, P., 1954. The New Concept of Neighborliness. American Journal of Sociology, 60, pp.163-68.
Marshall, E.M., 2007. Endings and New Beginnings. Sales & Service Excellence, 7(1), pp.14-14. 1/2 p.
87
Roos & Wolters 2014
McCracken, G., 1988. Culture and Consumption. New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of
Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McKendrick, N., Brewer, J. & Plumb, J.H., 1982. The Birth of a Consumer Society. The
Commercialization of Eighteenth-century England. London: Europa Publications.
Mehdizadeh, S., 2010. Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), pp.357-64.
Microsoft, 1999. The Challenge and Promise of "Generation I" (press release). [Online] Available at:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/1999/10-28geni.aspx [Accessed 9 May 2014].
Middleton, S., Ashworth, K. & Braithwaite, I., 1997. Small Fortunes: Spending on Children, Childhood
Poverty and Parental Sacrifice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Miles, S., Cliff, D. & Burr, V., 1998. 'Fitting In and Sticking Out': Consumption, Consumer Meanings
and the Construction of Young People's Identities. Journal of Youth Studies, 1(1), pp.81-96.
Morgan, D.L. & Krueger, R.A., 1993. When to use Focus Groups and why. In D.L. Morgan, ed.
Succesful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of Art. Newbury Park, California: Sage. p.288.
Muise, A., Christofides, E. & Desmarais, S., 2009. More Information than You Ever wanted: Does
Facebook bring out The Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy? Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 12,
pp.441-44.
Mussweiler, T., 2009. Social Comparison. In F. Strack & J. Förster, eds. Social Cognition - The Basis of
Human Interaction. New York: Psychology Press. pp.139-56.
Nester, W., 2010. Globalization, a Short History of the Modern World. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Nielsen, 2009. How Teens Use Media. The Nielsen Company.
Packard, V., 1960. The Waste Makers. 1st ed. United States: Vance Packard Inc..
Palsjoang, T.a., 2014. Tenants at Palsjoang. [Online] Available at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/204909306346636/?fref=ts [Accessed 13 May 2014].
Park, R., 1916. Suggestions for the Investigations of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment.
American Journal of Sociology , 20(5), pp.577-612.
Payne, M.S., 1976. Preparing for Group Interview. Advances in Consumer Research, 3(1), pp.434-36.
Petkova, D., 2006. Identity and the Human Interaction on the Internet - Limitations of Current Social
Research and Prospects of Future Analysis. In First European Communication Conference.
Amsterdam, 2006.
Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On The Horizon, 9, pp.1-6.
Pressman, S., 2011. John Kenneth Galbraith: the Economic Legacy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
88
Roos & Wolters 2014
Prinstein, M.J. & Dodge, K.A., 2010. Understanding Peer Influence in Children and Adolescents. 1st
ed. The Guildford Press.
Przybylski, A.K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C.R. & Gladwell, V., 2013. Motivational, Emotional and
Behavioural correlates of Fear of Missing Out. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(4), pp.184148.
Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon and Schutser.
Resnick, P., 2002. Human-computer interaction in the new millennium. In J.M. Carroll, ed. Beyond
bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. pp.247-72.
Richins, M., 1995. Social Comparison, Advertising and Consumer Discontent. American Behavioral
Scientist, 38(4), pp.593-607.
Ries, A. & Trout, J., 1981. Positioning: The Battle of your Mind. McGraw-Hill Education.
Ritzer, G., 2004. The Globalization of Nothing. Pine Forge Press.
Rosen, L.D. et al., 2013. Is Facebook Creating "iDisorders"? The Link Between Clinical Symptoms of
Psychiatric Disorders and Technology Use, Attitudes and Anxiety. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(3), pp.1243-54.
Rothaermel, F. & Siguiyama, S., 2001. Virtual Internet Communities and Commercial Success:
Individual and Community-Level Theories Grounded in the Atypical Case of TimeZone.com.
Journal of Managemetn, 27(3), pp.297-312.
Salimkhan, G., Manago, A.M. & Greenfield, P.M., 2010. The Construction of the Virtual Self on
MySpace. Cyberpsychology , 4 (1).
Sampson, P., 1972. Qualitative Research and Motivation Research. In M. Worchester, ed. Consumer
Market Research Handbook. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Book Co. pp.7-27.
Sampson, R., Morenoff, J. & Gannon-Rowley, T., 2002. Assessing Neighborhood Effects: Social
Processes and New Directions in Research. Annual Review of Sociology , 28, pp.443-78.
Sanders, A., 2013. Enlightend Hedonism and Consumerism. [Online] Available at:
"http://www.andbethere.com/2013/09/enlightened-hedonism.html"
http://www.andbethere.com/2013/09/enlightened-hedonism.html [Accessed 25 May 2014].
Schor, J., 1998. The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downscaling and the New Consumer. New York:
Basic Books.
Schot, J.B., 2001. Why do we consume so much? New York: Saint John's University.
Schwartz, B., 2004. The Paradox of Choice. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Sherman, D. & Salisbury, J., 2011. West: Experiencing Western Civilazation. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill.
89
Roos & Wolters 2014
Silverman, D., 1993. Qualitative Methodology and Sociology: Describing the Social World. London:
Sage.
Simmel, G., 1957. Fashion`. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), pp.541-58.
Smith, C., 2014. Digital Marketing Ramblings; How many People use Social Media, Apps and Tools.
[Online] Available at: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-peopleuse-the-top-social-media/3/#.U0_jxvl_sz4 [Accessed 17 April 2014].
Smith, A., 2014. PewResearchCenter - 6 new facts about Facebook. [Online] Available at:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/ [Accessed 11
May 2014].
Stiglitz, J.E., 2003. Globalization and its Discontents. WW Norton & Company.
Strickland, D.E., 1979. The Social Structure of Urban Neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Quarterly , 14,
pp.391-400.
Tadajewski, M. & Brownlie, D., 2008. Critical Marketing: A Limit Attitude. Critical Marketing: Issues in
Contemporary Marketing, pp.1-28.
Tapscott, D., 1999. Educating the Net Generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), pp.6-11.
Thomas, M. & Thompson, A., 2014. Empire and Globalization: from 'Hight Imperialism' to
Decolonisation. International History Review, 36(1), pp.142-70.
Thompson, J.B., 1995. Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Stanford, U.S.A.: Stanford
University Press.
Thompson, C.J. & Tambyah, S.K., 1999. Trying to be Cosmopolitan. Journal of Consumer Research,
26(3), pp.214-41.
Tönnies, F., 1912. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie. 2nd ed.
Berlin: Curtius.
Tönnies, F., 1967. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In C. Bell & H. Newby, eds. The Sociology of
Community. London: Frank Cass an Co. Ltd. pp.7-12.
Tubella, I., 2005. Television and Internet in the Construction of Identity. In M. Castells & C. Gustavo,
eds. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for
Transatlantic Relation.
Unger, D.G. & Wandersman, A., 1985. The Importance of Neighbors: The Social, Cognitive and
Affective Components of Neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology , 13(2),
pp.139-69.
Urry, J., 2001. Sociology beyond Societes: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London:
Routledge.
90
Roos & Wolters 2014
Valenzuela, S., Park, N. & Kee, K., 2009. Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook
Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 14(4), pp.875-901.
Valkenburg, P.M. & Peter, J., 2007. Online Communication and Adolescent Well-Being: Testing the
Stimulation Versus the Displacement Hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12, pp.1169-82.
Valkenburg, P., Peter, J. & Schouten, A.P., 2006. Friend Networking Sites and Their Relationship to
Adolescents' Wellbeing and Social Self-Esteem. Cyberpschychology & Behaviour, 9(5), pp.58489.
Veblen, T., 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. United States: Macmillan.
Von Feilitzen, C. & Bught, C., 2001. Outlooks on Children and Media: Child Rights, Media Trends,
Media Research, Media Literacy, Child Participation, Declerations. Goteborg: UNESCO
International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen.
Walker, G., 1977. Social Networks and Territory in a Commuter Village, Bond Head, Ontario.
Canadian Geographer, 21(4), pp.329-50.
Walther, J.B., 2007. Selective Self-Presentation in Computer-Mediated Communication:
Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Technology, Language and Cognition. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23, pp.2538-57.
Weber, M., 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Weber, M., 1968. Economy and Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press.
Weiss, R., 1974. Loneliness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiss, R., 1987. Men and Their Wives' Work. In F. Crosby, ed. Spouse, Parent, Worker: On Gender
and Multiple Roles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp.109-21.
Wellman, B., 1979. The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers. American
Journal of Sociology, 84, pp.1201-31.
Wellman, B., 1981. The Application of Network Analysis to the Study of Support. In B. Gottlieb, ed.
Social Networks and Social Support. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wellman, B., 1992. Which Types of Ties and Networks provide what Kinds of Social Support.
Advances in group processes, 9, pp.207-35.
Wellman, B., Carrington, P. & Hall, A., 1988. Networks as Personal Communities. In B. Wellman & S.D.
Berkowitz, eds. Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp.130-84.
Wellman, B. & Wortley, S., 1990. Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social
Support. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), pp.558-88.
West, P., 2004. Why it is sometimes Cruel to be Kind. 1st ed. Civitas.
91
Roos & Wolters 2014
Whyte, W.H., 1954. The Web of Word of Mouth. Fortune, November, pp.140-43.
Wilson, T.D., 1994. The proper protocol: Validity and Completeness of Verbal Reports. Psychological
Science, 5(5), pp.249-52.
Wilson, T.D. & Schooler, J.W., 1991. Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of
preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, pp.181-92.
Yin, R.K., 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The Guildford Press.
A PPENDIX 1: A ID M EMOIRE
To conduct our focus group interviews we have made use of an aid memoire in order to make sure all
points of our interest would be discussed. However, we took a flexible approach in order to let our
participants talk freely and leave a degree of spontaneity with the aim of discovering other
interesting non-predefined topics.
Introduction:
-
Thank the participants for coming
Briefly state the focus group process and time frame
Brief introduction of our research topic, making sure not to give away too much as to prevent
bias
Invite them to talk freely and be completely their self, let the conversation flow
SNS Usage and Role Models:
-
Which social networks do you use? How active are you on social networks?
How would you describe the people that you interact with online?
Do you actively keep track of TV Stars, celebrities or other role models, and why?
Do you have a specific role model/someone that you admire? Who? How do you keep up to date with
that person?
Globalization + Consumption:
-
How do you think globalization changes social relations?
Can you explain why you think some relationship significantly changed in nature through digitalization
and Social Media?
Behaviour:
-
From whom do you feel pressure to do things? (Lifestyle)  Neknominations, education, travel? how?
Who influences your behaviour most?
Buying behaviour:
-
From whom do you feel pressure to buy things? Parents, friends, neighbours etc?
Who influences your buying behaviour most?
How do you think this was 50 years ago? Why has it changed?
92
Roos & Wolters 2014
Social Comparison:
-
What do you think are the main criteria by which people make their judgements about others? And
why?
Is that criteria different online and offline?
Do you know your neighbours?
Do you have frequent contact with them?
Who are they?
How would you describe your relationship with them?
Do you compare your life to people from higher, lower, or the same social class?
Digital life and happiness:
-
Is there a difference between how you reflect on life events online and offline? Are things you put on
your Social Media ‘real’ or ‘less real’?
Do you share things you buy, if yes, what kind of things? Do you use visuals for that?
How does it feel when you accidently leave your phone at home? Even though you don’t need it?
Does it seem to you that there are others in your networks that have a better life than you? If you could
swap lives with someone, who would it be and why?
Continuing the above, do you think life is fair?
93